 Good morning everyone and welcome to the 26th meeting of the NetZera energy and transport committee for 2023. The first item on the agenda is consideration of whether to take items 5 and 6 in private. Item 5 is consideration of evidence, we will hear under agenda item 2 and item 6 is consideration of our work programme are we agreed to take these items in private. Wrth gwrdd, rydyn ni'n meddwl gynion yりwyr hefyd ar y Gaerdydd ysgolwyr, gweithio i'r diffromwyselu gyda'r dweud o'r llenni chainhau a'r meddwl amseriau hefyd yn y dweud o'r hui yma. Mae'r ddweud yn amlwg dyma o'r perfforfa cwmplicaethau, yn rhan o'r ddweud yma yw'r dysgu yma. A wedyn yma rwy'n pethau'r ddefnyddio ddindig o'r ymdwymoしましたol. We heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and the Just Transition in June, and we heard from the Cabinet Secretary for the Well-being, Economy, Fair Work and Energy last week. This week we will begin by hearing from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, Mary Gougeon. I welcome you, Cabinet Secretary, and I'm pleased to also welcome from the Scottish Government George Burgess, the director for agriculture and rural economy, and David as Srini, interim director of environment and forestry. The evidence session will take place now in the run-up and the preparations for the Scottish Government's budget for 2023 and 24, as well as confirmation earlier this month there is to be a new land reform bill. Cabinet Secretary, I believe that you wish to make an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and I'm really pleased to be here with the committee today to outline my priorities in relation to land reform as well as the environmental matters within my remit. As we've set out in the new programme for government, it makes it clear that responding to the climate and the nature crises will remain at the very heart of the Government's approach going forward. It is the existential threat of our times, and we're seeing the devastating impacts it's already having, particularly on the world's poorest with increasing frequency. We don't underestimate what this change means for daily life, particularly during these particularly tough times. Ensuring that our approach is fair and actively tackles inequalities through a just transition is a key element of our planning. However, if it is managed well, addressing, mitigating and adapting to climate change and protecting and restoring nature will also bring us huge benefits. These are major challenges, but they will also create opportunities. As highlighted in the PFG, caring for Scotland's peatlands is a critical element of our approach to tackling the linked climate and nature emergencies. Our new peatland programme will deliver an increasingly integrated and evidence-led approach to peatland restoration, management and protection. To this end, the Government has committed £250 million over 10 years to restoring 250,000 hectares of degraded peatlands by 2030. It will complement the work that we are already taking to address the concentration and transparency of land ownership and to support more communities into land ownership through a new land reform bill. The bill stems from work done by the Scottish Land Commission, which was established under the 2016 Land Reform Act and the consultation that we undertook last year. It will build on existing land reform measures such as the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land and complement existing community right-to-buy mechanisms to ensure that Scottish communities derive greater benefits from Scotland's land. The Scottish Government will help rural communities to take advantage of those opportunities to become more sustainable, productive and prosperous through supporting those good green jobs in the rural economy. This investment will also play a critical part in Scotland's just transition to net zero by 2045. I look forward to our discussion today, and I am happy to take any questions from the committee. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Before we go any further, I would like to remind the committee and the cabinet secretary of my register of interests, where it clearly shows that I am a member of a family farming partnership and my own land in Murray. Now that that is on the record, I would like to clarify before we go into questions from Ash, who will be the first questioner. When we were discussing land reform prior to the reshuffle, it fell within Murray-McAllan's portfolio. Can you just confirm to me that everything to do with land reform now falls purely within your portfolio, cabinet secretary? Yes, that is right. Taking forward the future land reform bill, that falls within my portfolio. Obviously, there are cross-cutting interests between the different portfolios, but land reform falls to me. Peatlands may fall within Murray-McAllan's portfolio, but the land reform side of it, if there is land reform on Peatlands, will fall within your portfolio. Just to clarify as well that Peatlands also falls within my portfolio, too. Gosh, well it's terribly confusing, but I'm glad we've got that on the record. I can look back and make sure I get it right in the future. Ash, you're going to have the first questions. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. I want to start by asking you about land reform. Obviously, it's around about 20 years now since we've had the community right to buy, but only 3 per cent of Scotland is in community ownership. I'm interested to know, is the Scottish Government happy with that level? Would you consider that the policy has been successful? I think it's important to remember that land reform is a journey. You're absolutely right that, in terms of it being 20 years since essentially that was first commenced. I think that we are intent on taking that further, which is why we will be bringing forward another land reform bill this year, as we'd previously committed to, because we want to see more of a diversity in terms of land ownership in Scotland, we want to see more community ownership. I think that that's one thing that came out of one of the previous reports that had been done by the Scottish Land Commission, was really about how in Scotland at the moment it's seen as, well, the right to buy for communities is seen as a means to an end when it should be something that is considered normal in Scotland and something that we should be proactively encouraging communities to do and that communities themselves should proactively be looking at. So I think that, as ever, there's almost more work to do, but I think that the land reform bill that we'll be introducing will take us a step further on that journey. So would you be able to outline what you would see as perhaps the key barriers as they stand at the moment? And whether you think that the legislation that's upcoming, would it be making those barriers easier for communities to get passed? Is that something you're considering? Of course. We want to try and remove those barriers that can prevent communities from considering ownership and ultimately to make that as a straightforward process. Obviously, we have to make sure that there are checks and balances in place there, so ensuring that we get that balance is critical. But I think that we can learn the lessons from previous pieces of legislation that have been passed before, identify where any of those challenges might have been and what might prevent communities from considering ownership as an option. I do think that we are seeing a positive trajectory when it comes to that. When you look at community ownership in Scotland, a report that was done in 2021 had shown that there had been over a 7 per cent increase in the amount of assets that are owned by the community just on the previous year. I know that, through the Scottish land fund, they're also seeing quite a good pipeline of projects coming through, so I think that appetite is there. We are seeing that clear appetite from communities. Things are heading in the right direction, but I hope that, through the land reform bill that we'll introduce, we'll continue to see that positive trajectory. One of the issues that we're noticing with it is that there seem to be quite a lot of geographical disparity. I'm sure that you will have noticed that yourself. I'm wondering if you have an idea of what the reasons behind that might be. For instance, we know that there's no community ownership at all in Falkirk and less than a handful in places like Aberdeen, Angus, which will be interesting to you, I'm sure, Dundee in East Dunbartonshire and also Renfrewshire. Does the Government have some actions in mind that they are looking at to address that? I think that, in relation to that, obviously we want to see a broad diversity and to ensure that every part of Scotland we are seeing community ownership and communities taking ownership of whether that's land or whether that's buildings and other assets too. Again, I reference the community ownership in Scotland report from 2021 and also within that, I think it highlighted where we saw the greatest increases in community ownership, in Highlands and Argyllun but, as you rightly identify, Falkirk is an area where there hasn't been any community ownership of assets. I think that it's something that we need to tease out and try to get to the bottom of what any potential issues might be there. It's also important to remember that there are a number of things that have to align when we look at community ownership. We need to ensure that there are the relevant community bodies that are in place, the right motivations are there, it has to be the right piece of land or the right asset. Maybe those pieces haven't quite aligned but, again, I think that we need to tease out what any potential barriers might be and look to see how we can address that. I think that it's how those projects come together, that overall motivation and making sure that everything that is aligned. It's also important to highlight too that, in terms of any decisions that are made, all of that is publicly available through the Registers of Scotland website so that, if anybody wanted to look at that information or to see the various reasons why, I think that they didn't go ahead, they can find that information there. Thank you, convener. Thank you. Ash for those. Monica, you've got some questions. Yes, thank you. I'm sticking with community right to buy. Cabinet Secretary, I wonder if you can help to explain why there is a lower approval rate for late applications, which I think is around 42 per cent, in comparison to Timmias's ones at 73 per cent, and whether the additional requirements for communities making late applications are proportionate and necessary? In relation to the late applications, that was a key part of the legislation and I think a really important part of the legislation that was introduced. I think that coming back to one of my previous responses, would I talk about ensuring that we're getting the balance there too? I think that that is what that legislation tried to strike by giving communities the opportunity in exceptional circumstances to register, to take forward or look for a transfer of land after the point of sale or transfer. I think that there are a couple of key checks and balances in that. First of all, to ensure that, from the landowner's perspective, that the community there has been an interest there in terms of the community, in terms of what they want to do with the land, but also from the community's perspective that a landowner isn't just seen to sell or transfer the land before the community have had a chance to register or express an interest. I believe that the balance that's set out there is correct, but of course if the committee hears any evidence to the contrary or this is a matter that they're considering, I'd be happy to take any further information from them in relation to that. Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. Some of the points that I've been reading about are just some of the extra requirements in terms of a significantly greater level of support at registration stage, which is how the unexpected template normally requires. It just seems that there are additional burdens there in whether that's fair or not. I don't know if you've got any sort of feeling on that. It is a fair point. There are additional barriers there, but I think particularly because of the points that I've raised there and that's really what these extra steps are there to try and balance and address. But again, if the committee is hearing evidence that contradicts that or the balance isn't quite right, then I'd be keen to get the information on that, but I do think that it's important that we have these protections there both for whether it's the community as well as for the landowner too. Currently, I feel that that balance is correct, and we have the right steps in place there, but again, more than happy to consider any other information. No, that's great. Thank you. What action has the Government taken to respond to the land commission's 2018 recommendations on community ownership and what expectations does the Government have of the community land leadership group? I think that it would probably be fair to say that we haven't as made as much progress against the outcomes in that report as what we would have liked to do, because I think that when that report was first introduced in 2018, the key focus at that time was on implementing the 2016 Land Reform Act, and then of course after that we had the pandemic, which quite rightly was a complete shift in focus for the Scottish Government as a whole. But I would say that there has been progress against some of the recommendations that were set out in that report. One key area, though, I would like to take forward, and I will follow up with the Scottish Land Commission on to see how we can progress so that the recommendations that are set out are in relation to the vision for community ownership. I think that that was a really important outcome from that report, so I'd be keen that we progress that. In relation to the first recommendation, we've now published NPF 4, which references some of the policy outcomes in relation to the second recommendation, which talks about indicators and different measurements, and how we assess and monitor that progress. We have addressed that through the national outcomes as well, where we now monitor the number of assets, not just the scale of what's being transferred, but also the number of assets that are in community ownership as well. I also think that there's scope there for us to address some of the other recommendations that came out of that report through the review of the community empowerment act from 2015. The review of that act is on-going at the moment, because it's also key to remember that the various rights to buy and community asset transfer, although those rights don't just fall to land reform legislation, but the community empowerment act, which is a responsibility of the community wealth minister as well. I think that it's ensuring that the different vehicles that we've got, we can try to address those recommendations. There are certainly areas where I want to address more progress. I'm sorry, could you raise your second question as well? I think that you've covered most of it. Again, it's just the expectations on the community land leadership group and just what action government has taken on the 2018 recommendations. Yes, the community land leadership group had their first meeting in May of this year, so it's still at a very early stage at the moment where they were really setting their terms of reference, but I do think that that will be a positive forum really for sharing some of those challenges, those ideas, looking at any opportunities that exist going forward. Their minutes are published online too, and I think that they will be looking at some of the key issues that we know communities face going forward, so I think that that will be a really critical and important part of that work going forward and how we assess and monitor our progress and, again, some of the challenges communities are up against. So, as I say, that works in its early stages, but I think that that will be important as we move forward. It's great. Lastly, because you anticipated what my final question might be, you mentioned community wealth, and I'm interested to find out how government is working behind the scenes to make sure that there is that cross-portfolio approach. In terms of land reform and your aspirations, what work is going on with other ministers to make sure that, in terms of just transition community wealth building legislation that there is that alignment? How does that work in practice? I think that it probably comes back to the point that the convener raised at the start of the meeting as well. Unfortunately, when it comes to some of these policy areas, they don't fit neatly in boxes, but we do work collaboratively across government to try and address those issues, which are clearly cross-cutting. That's the case right across my portfolio. We talked about Peatland's environment biodiversity earlier. Community wealth building is exactly the same. As I say, their community rights through the Community Empowerment Act 2020 is a strong link with the work that we take forward in land reform. I have that engagement with the Minister for Community Wealth, and I'll obviously be engaging in the work that he's taking forward through that legislation when that comes forward, as well as through the review of the Community Empowerment Act 2020. I think that it's really important that we can't work in silos and that we need to make sure that we have that joint up. Indeed. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, to date, there have been three applications to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land, none of which were approved. It was one application to buy land to further sustainable development, which is currently under consideration. It doesn't seem to be working, does it? Well, I think that it's one area. When you look at those applications in particular, so this was, I think that it's actually, even though it was part of the 2003 legislation, came into force in 2018, so it only had a few years there. It's important to look at those different applications, and, of course, everyone is assessed on its own merits. But I think that even though the three applications that had been put forward hadn't ultimately been successful through that piece of legislation, it was for a variety of different reasons. So in two of those applications, the land owner was periodically doing work to the land, so then it couldn't fall into that classification of being neglected and abandoned. In the other case, there was, in the end, a negotiated transfer of the land, which was then facilitated and funded through the Scottish Land Fund. Even though it didn't go through that process, there was still that mechanism there. Ultimately, that's where we would like to be when it comes to land transfers or land acquisition that's done through negotiation and agreement. In terms of one of those, that's how that was done there. So do we need to change the criteria to make it more attractive and to actually encourage more of these to take place? Again, I think it's something that I would warrant a closer look at to see. Well, what are the barriers there? Are there criteria that, again, would potentially need to be considered? But I think that I don't think that it has been—we'll obviously see with the application that's there at the moment where that gets to—but I think that, given that one of those was ultimately still successful, I think that that's a positive step. But, again, it's just something we have to continue to monitor. So you mentioned barriers there, and there's something that Ashraeggan asked earlier. You know, what are the barriers? Now, what work have you done to assess what the barriers are that is meaning that these aren't coming forward? I mean, if you're talking specifically in relation to the abandoned, neglected and detrimental land— We'll go wider than that then. Oh, yeah. Well, I think particularly in relation to that one, as I say, it's not as straightforward as it can be made out in terms of the applications purely because the land ended up not falling into those categories in a couple of those examples. But, of course, wherever there are challenges or issues, we want to try to get to the bottom of that. And, again, I think that's where we have the community land leadership group that can help us try and look at some of the issues that exist there. We know, for an example, right now that cost of living pressures and the inflationary costs that people are seeing can be a barrier for progressing with transfers or acquisitions. So, again, that's why the funding and the support that we provide through the Scottish Land Fund is really critical in trying to address that, too. But I don't know if officials would have any further information, or George, if we would have any, to add to that. In relation to the abandoned and neglected areas, I think that if you think of it from the perspective of the community group, there is often a reason why the land has been abandoned or neglected, and community groups might actually be quite reticent about jumping in. So, I think that maybe lies behind why we've had a few examples at the moment. There is detailed guidance on the criteria that ministers will use when identifying whether land is abandoned or neglected. We can, of course, look at that again, but I think that we've got relative little evidence at the moment to work from. But, with some of the community groups out there, we can seek to identify whether there is an untapped pool of community interest that there is something that is blocking that. I suspect probably not a great deal at the moment. As the Government has done detailed work to see what the barriers are around community ownership, because you mentioned cost-living crisis. What else is there? There must be other reasons why people aren't coming forward, whether it's lack of help from local authorities, whether it's maybe too much risk that they perceive. I'm trying to understand what the barriers are. I think that, as the cabinet secretary said earlier, the evidence from the Scottish Land Fund is that there is a good pipeline of projects coming forward to them from community, so there doesn't seem to be, for that aspect, a significant lack of demand. It's perhaps more around the abandoned neglected land and the furthering of sustainable development that we have seen a rather smaller number coming through. I think that, through the community land leadership group for the discussions there, with the sort of community ownership support service, to get more of that sort of grassroots feel for what the issues are. I also think that the review of the community empowerment act will potentially flesh some of that out as well. I'm sure that we would all have examples within our own constituencies or regions about where, when it comes to community asset transfer, that process hasn't quite worked out for a variety of different reasons. I think that it's important that that review is undertaken so that we can see how, on the whole, that process is working and if there are any lessons to be learned from that, too. So when will we see that review coming back? Will the criteria change for some of these schemes? Well, I'm not in a position to outline that purely because it's being led by the Minister for Community Wealth, but I'd be happy to follow that up with colleagues and provide that written advice to the committee. Just Cabinet Secretary, before we move on from community right to buy, obviously, once a community has purchased the land, the next thing is to make sure that it's viable. Could you just confirm that all the community right to buy or have ended up being able to stand on their own two feet with their assets, and if not, how much has it cost the Government to fund them on an annual basis to allow them to do so? I don't have that information to hand, or I don't know if George would have any information on that, but again, I'd be happy to follow up and give that to the committee. Okay, I think it would be helpful. I think experience tells me that sometimes looking after large tracts of land with minimal assets actually costs money rather than generates money. So I think it would be very helpful to know it's fine promoting the community right to buy, which I do if the community group wants to do it, but it's how we fund them going forward, which I think is relevant. I also think that's where we talked about the different steps that are in place before that can be registered, how that moves forward, and ensuring that we have all these checks in place is really important to ensure that, as far as possible, this is done in a sustainable way. But again, I'll look into that and provide that information to the committee. I absolutely understand the principle of putting management plans forward and how often management plans don't always follow through exactly as they've been planned. But it'd be very helpful from the committee's point of view, especially with land reform coming up. I want to move now to the deputy convener, Ben Macpherson. Thank you, convener. Just before I ask my questions on community asset transfers, I just want to say that the heart of New Haven in my constituency has been a tremendous success and a good example of a community asset transfer happening in an urban area. Likewise, Belfield, in Ashwagins constituency, has been a successful project. I'm moving on to some questions about land markets. Cabinet Secretary and your officials, welcome. First of all, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the land commission's recently published land market insights report and any thoughts you have on the findings of it. Absolutely. Just to pick up on your first point as well, I don't know where Granton falls, whether that's in your constituency or in Ashwagins, in fact, but just to say that I'd undertaken a visit there in May. I think that that was, again, great to see in an urban area what you can do through the Scottish Land Fund and just how important these transfers of land can be for community groups. But in relation to the market insights report, we obviously welcome that work that's been undertaken by the Land Commission and their findings were based on a number of—it was based on desk-based analysis as well as interviews with a number of land agents as well as values as well. Obviously, it highlights that the number of transactions in that year has been very low for the findings that the price of timber had largely impacted land values before, but it was really interesting to see the impact of the changes to the woodland carbon code and how they were seen to have had a cooling effect on the land market from that perspective, too. I think that it's really valuable for us to take those insights and to see where any interventions we can take, as I say, through the changes to woodland carbon code, can have an impact. I appreciate the responsibility for nature of Scotland and does not lie with yourself and the public-private finance pilot, but do you believe that private investment in ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration is necessary and what impact do you think that that is having on Scotland's land market and could potentially have going forward? Related to that, is there a risk that two parts of government could be acting against each other and their each other stated objectives with public money for carbon sequestration inflating land prices and limiting the opportunity, therefore, to be bold and radical in diversifying patterns of land ownership? There's a lot in that, so if I do forget a point, please come back to me. In relation to the nature of Scotland pilot in particular and the need for private investment in carbon sequestration, I do think that it's necessary that we have private investment. I don't think that we can reach our climate targets or do what we need to do in relation to addressing the biodiversity crisis that we're in as well without that private investment. We've recognised that within our national strategy for economic transformation, but it's also been recognised globally too through the global biodiversity framework, which had been agreed at COP 15, which recognises just how important private finance is, because I think that with all the public money and resource we have available, I don't think that we would be able to, I think just the sheer scale of investment that's needed, we can't do that through the public purse alone. But what is really critical then is if we recognise the need for private investment, ensuring that that is what we've set out and what we want to achieve, that it's values-led, that it's based on specific principles that we feel are important to us in Scotland. I think that there is that community involvement as well, so it's ensuring that we have all that in place. I think that the nature of Scotland pilot offers a valuable opportunity to really look at that and ensure that we are having that values-led, integrity-based system of private investment in Scotland. I don't see that in particular having an issue on land values, because that pilot project in and of itself is about working with existing landowners and seeing how they can make that work together. Of course it is a pilot, so we'll be monitoring that closely and making sure that we take any learning from that as we go and it's happening in two parts of Scotland in particular. I think that it's really important that we monitor that. As I said in my previous response about the Woodland carbon code as well, I think that we can see how we can make some interventions that can have an impact through the extra additionality that we introduced through that code. Then it's interesting to see that follow through the market insights report too. I do think that investment on the whole is important, but we need to make sure that we manage it correctly and do that in a fair and a transparent way. That also involves communities, because I think that that can be an issue. We need to make sure that our communities feel part of that process and that they actually see the benefits from that private investment as well. I think that I've got a note of your other point about whether that contradicts other areas of policy. Was that the point that you were raising? I don't see our policies being contradictory. If anything, I see them as being complementary with each other. We have the interim principles for responsible investment in land. We have our land rights and responsibility statement as well, all of which set out that we need to see diverse ownership. We need to see more community ownership in Scotland. I think that our values are very much aligned in that regard, and I don't see any contradiction in policy in terms of what we've set out. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Within that, there's a pertinent point that to invest in land and measures, whether it's with regard to biodiversity or carbon reduction, the investor doesn't necessarily need to own the land. It can be in agreement with the landowner, and through that consideration seems to be where you see that we are able to undertake a process of land reform where we diversify who owns land, but also advance those necessary investments and bring that private finance into the shared aspirations of biodiversity and carbon reduction. One last question, if I may convener. You touched on it earlier, cabinet secretary, around the considerations around land value and if there's anything more you want to add around how a more diverse pattern of land ownership will be realised through a situation where the reality is that there are increases in land value. Any thoughts on that as a generic point, further thoughts would be helpful. You touched earlier on the grant in my constituency, which was an example of where working with central government, local government, was able to acquire land in order to have the necessary flexibility and ownership of the asset in order to deliver public and social housing. Thank you for your answer in the chamber last week on those points. As we consider the land reform bill, while a lot of the focus will be on rural Scotland, the pertinence of land reform in urban Scotland when we face an increasingly challenging housing situation with demand for housing and cost of housing being a real challenge for many families, I don't know if you want me to comment more widely on the urban considerations. Absolutely, that's a really important point and I think that's why that was recognised in the changes that have been implemented to the Scottish land fund as well back in 2016, because up until that point it had just been mainly rural considerations, but recognising that, of course, in urban areas as well there are still critical issues there too. So it is a really important point. I'm coming back to the point that you made about the increasing land values and the impact that that has and our ability to support communities with increasing land prices. Obviously, our main mechanism for that funding support is the Scottish land fund. We've increased the funding to that this year to £11 with the overall aim of doubling the land fund to £20 million by 2026, because we want to ensure that we are assisting as many communities as possible. While we want to make sure that we are funding as many different community ownership projects as we can and we want to make sure that we're seeing that spread in terms of projects, I think that we've seen through other transfers and it of course depends on individual applications that we have funded projects to quite a significant extent through the land fund as well. So I think that we do have that important mechanism there, but I think that that's where also other fundraising efforts are important. We've seen that in other cases too, where whether that's community fundraising, private donors have had a hand to play in that as well. It's also about the other support that we can provide. We've also funded the community ownership support service to help with that advice and assistance, so I think that it's ensuring that we are maximising the advice guidance and the funding opportunities that we have. It is just a situation that we are going to have to continue to monitor closely so that we are enabling communities as far as possible to have those opportunities for ownership. Thank you. Thank you, Cymru. Thank you, Deputy convener. Just before we move on to the next question, there were some suggestions, well we'd written to you I think cabinet secretary on the land commissioners and the appointment and Andrew Thin as chairman is stepping down and we'd asked why you'd chosen to extend him for three months in post. It either suggested that you'd started the recruitment too late or there was a problem with it. Could you highlight what that extension and the reason for that is, please? No problem and I understand of still to formally reply to the committee as well but it was really to ensure that we had that continuity through the appointments process and as we're looking to appoint new commissioners to the role as well. I'm sorry, I'm completely confused. I understand you want continuity but if you want continuity you actually recruit before the times the person's time is up rather than just extending it. Well through that period of change I think that continuity is important rather than having whole scale change of the commission. Sorry George for you wanting to come in. I think first say we did start in good time on this process but the interaction between government and the committee on the appropriate involvement of the committee and the process has taken a little bit longer than we had expected so that has set back our time scale by a small amount and therefore the cabinet secretary has agreed. George, that's quite a comment to make and I will check up whether the committee actually was reticent in delaying its response. I don't believe it was and I certainly don't believe that I'm going to accept that. I went up the heart that because I think this is a conversation that I'm happy to take with the cabinet secretary offline. But I think it's important to clarify, I don't think George was saying it's the committee's fault that that process was latest because we've been following a new process with the ethical standards commissioner as well so I think it's been getting to grips with that new process so by no means blaming the committee at all but I think that I'm happy to follow up with the convener afterwards but I just want to clarify that point. I think it would be best to at this stage so I'm going to go straight on to Jackie Dunbar who's got some questions Jackie. Thank you, good morning. My questions today is roundabout access. Many folk during and post Covid found or rediscovered our outdoor spaces and our gorgeous curtside. With that in mind, cabinet secretary, do you think that the current outdoor access code is sufficient and detail and directive to cope with a large increase in access levels? What do you think needs to be done to manage these challenges that increased visitor numbers have created especially around popular spots? I think as much as it is a challenge, I think it is also something to be welcomed to a certain extent the fact that we see more people enjoying our outdoor spaces and I think that's exactly what we would hope to see but it is that responsible access which is absolutely key. Now I know that in relation to the outdoor access code that was an issue that was debated extensively when the legislation was first passed and I do think that it's hugely important that we retain those rights to free access but that's where I think that it's the education, it's the guidance that's available around that which is really important. I know that NatureScot's been working with the national access forum in relation to that education, that guidance and looking at campaigns in that regard but I do think that there's no getting around the fact that there have been very particular issues so as a result of that work in 2020 there were visitor management groups that had been established, we'd also created visitor management strategy, we'll develop that and they look to implement that as well to try and manage those hotspots where they arise and alongside that as well we've also had the rural tourism infrastructure fund to try and help where there can be particular issues with infrastructure in certain areas so I think we've undertaken a number of measures in that regard to try and alleviate some of the pressures that are seen but on the whole I just don't think that we can let the behaviour of and the responsible few really harm the access rights for the vast majority who do enjoy that responsible access of our countryside but you know there's no getting around it, it is a difficult thing to manage but I do think that these are vitally important rights that we need to retain. Absolutely agree with you as someone who visits the Highlands regularly and I think education is the key but the sad fact is that there is a small amount of folk that just do not abide by the rules and will behave irresponsibly when they're out and about so do you think that the current bylaws are appropriate and proportionate to manage this behaviour or do you have another solution? I'd be interested to hear the committee's thoughts on that as well actually I mean I do think that it's I think that the bylaws are an important mechanism because I do think we're we do have these particular areas whether it's a responsible behaviour or even just in terms of public safety these are you know risks that we have to we have to try and manage but we do know that there have been successful campaigns in other areas that you know where there haven't been the use of bylaws and I think a good example of that is the like it be campaign that's been run by Care and Gorms because that is a really difficult thing to manage you know as I was saying earlier that free access with also trying to protect what is a hugely important species for us in Scotland in the Capercaillie and that was work that was done with ecologists in various other groups as well and I think that that has been shown to be successful but I do think it's also right that the national parks have the mechanism for a bylaw or to introduce bylaws where they think that's necessary and to enable that I mean enforcement is only ever a very last resort in relation to that but I do think it's an important mechanism that they have so I think that there's just recently been that review and Loch Lomond and Trossix about the bylaws there because they've seen an increase in incidents at the Loch with greater numbers of people going outdoors and you know just some of the really tragic incidents that we've heard about that have happened there too so I think it's important that they're able to take measures to try and address that where they can for public safety but enabling that enjoyment and that access to the outdoors as well so I do think we have the right balance in enabling that but again more than happy to take the thoughts of the committee on that and hear their views okay thank you thank you we've got some questions from mark ruskell mark yeah thanks very much I wanted to turn to crown state scotland and their role on climate change so you know we're obviously developing a new climate change plan at the moment it's going to need innovation new policies coming forward what do you see as cs's role in that in that space are they are they feeding into that plan where do you see the opportunities going forward for cs within their role to really you know help us to take the action to meet the ambition that's in the law I think they've got an important role in a number of ways I think first of all in terms of all our our public agencies and crown state scotland in particular I think there are opportunities there to to lead by example and I know that when it comes to the the scotland estate in particular they have their own climate change action plan and they're also part of an environment economy leaders group so that involves the the chief executives of all the the main public bodies as well as their sponsoring divisions within the scotland government ensuring that there is that collaboration across the piece on climate change adapting to that as well and ensuring that they are feeding into that to the broader policy objectives there too so I think that it's really critical that they are part of that work and they do directly feed into that work as well but I think in terms of their future work too their commissioning work to look at adaptation what that might look like for this state also looking at you know forestry peatland what they can do with it with the assets that they have as well so I do see them as a critical part of the work that we take forward on climate change. Do you think there's enough innovation there so I'm thinking in particular about the marine environment and I noticed that I think they're doing some work looking at whether blue carbon is you know is an acceptable you know way to see private investment come in or not you know obviously we've got you know marine energy technologies as well need for kind of innovation around that are you comfortable that CS are already sort of pushing into these spaces trying to make sense of it trying to think of appropriate ways forward or is there is a kind of more to do again I think probably we can't say that everybody's doing enough because I think there is always more to do I think especially when it comes to climate change and the nature crises as well now this is slightly off topic but it just reminds me of you know when you look at land reform there too and I talk about you know crime estate leading by example so with the Scottish Land Commission they're taking forward a community land accelerator pilot as well so I think it shows how they can they have the opportunity to act in that space to really try and make a difference to ultimately achieve all of our shared objectives as well so I think there is always more that can be done but I think that there they are in a particularly unique position given the land that they own the marine assets the built assets that they have as well to take a lead in each of these areas yeah yeah and then on the other crisis the biodiversity nature crisis you know we've now got the strategic framework and delivery plan do you see there are there are key opportunities there I guess I would particularly highlight you know aquaculture we're still seeing widespread community concern about the growth of aquaculture in Scotland there is a view that it is not being appropriately regulated and there are criticisms of CES and others in that space so given that challenge given other challenges and opportunities do you think CES could and should be doing more to deliver our biodiversity strategy again there's a lot to unpick in each element of that as well having done a separate aquaculture session I think that there is a lot of work going on in that space at the moment and I think just to address that point in particular we published our vision for sustainable aquaculture over the summer and I think you'll see as part of that that you know we put that enhanced emphasis on climate and on the environment as well as on community benefit as well because we want to see that we're seeing ensure that we're seeing more of that benefit come to communities across scotland who host aquaculture but there are also a number of key commitments in that as well about going beyond the regulatory limits when it comes to waste discharge as an example about how we can collect that waste use that as part of our structural economy and better utilise waste as well so I think that there are a number of new commitments within that and also it's also important to recognise first of all the innovation and technology that's going on in the sector at the moment as well to try and address some of the key challenges that they face and also in relation to regulation now I wouldn't necessarily agree there isn't enough regulation but I think that there are a number of bodies involved in the regulation of aquaculture we know we need to make improvements in that regard and that's where the work that we're taking forward on the back of the Griggs review is really important we have the Scottish aquaculture council and a key thread of that work at the moment is in relation to consenting so we have a consenting task force there it's not about less regulation it's about more efficient and more transparent regulation of the industry too and how we can make that work more effectively with all the key bodies involved and we're hoping to take forward a pilot of that very soon and to see what improvements can be made to that system so again there's a whole host body of work going on in that space but again coming back to Crown and State Scotland in their role in biodiversity they do have a really key role to play in that as well and I think when I talked about it in the climate change space they're part of the environment and economy leadership group they're also part of the Scottish biodiversity programme as well which is about engaging with the stakeholders exactly looking at the biodiversity strategy they're also starting to embed that in the work that they're taking forward with their own farming tenants I we're seeing that through the work that they do they have an environmental grant scheme as well where it is about biodiversity I'm getting rid of invasive non-native species and all sorts of different things in relation to biodiversity there too so again there's always more that can be done but I do think they are doing a lot of work in that space and that will continue as we look forward to the biodiversity strategy and delivery plan. Okay thanks for that. I think earlier on in response to convener you clarified what your role is in relation to peatland restoration I mean obviously a you know shared priority across government with different ministers feeding in but can you can you say a comment then on why the peatland restoration has been so so difficult to achieve at the scale that we need it to achieve if we're to tackle climate emergency I mean what what is the what is the problem here what can be done to increase that rate of restoration yeah we do know that more needs to be done to accelerate the rates of peatland restoration that we're seeing but there are a number of challenges in relation to that um first of all there's only a short season for that work taking place it's the skills capacity I think there had been challenges in the past about that overall future commitment for funding but of course we have the the 10-year funding commitment of £250 million in relation to that as well so there are a number of different factors at play but we are taking action to try and address what are the key bottlenecks so Nature Scott is leading on a peatland skills action plan we have a delivery improvement plan as well identifying what those key challenges are and the actions that we're taking to try and mitigate and address them too but we would also want to highlight that and maybe end my response on a bit of a positive because we are still even though the rates aren't what we would like to see and we know we need to go further and do more of that we are seeing that trajectory heading in the right direction so our target this year and that we'd set out in the pfg was to restore 10,700 hectares now that's a 40 increase on the restoration rates that we saw over the course of this last year which saw seven and a half thousand hectares restored but even that seven and a half thousand hectares was 35 percent of an increase on the previous year so I think that even though we're not where we need to be the trajectory is strong and we're taking action to try and address the challenges that we know exists because we know we need to do more. Do you think there's a role for private sector natural capital investment in this space because obviously the focus so far has been on woodlands but in terms of peatlands? Yes absolutely and I think that you know we also have the the peatland codes there as well but I think that there have been issues with that that they're looking at addressing too in terms of the validation of projects through that as well so I do think as I said in a previous response that private investment is essential going forward in these key areas it's how we manage that and ensure that it's an integrity based and values led market that we have in relation to that as well but again we know what the issues are we're doing what we can to try and address them and ensure that we are seeing the restoration rates increase. Thank you Mark just some questions if I may on islands which also fall within your portfolio the sector economy bills being published and we'll produce some challenges I suspect if implemented as it stands for islands and how they cope with the requirements of the bill can I ask how you fed into that process and what you see the key challenges are? Again I suppose like anything there where there are challenges there are also opportunities for that and I think we see that with the work that we're doing with climate change in islands so they'll be at the forefront of the climate change impacts that we see but I think that they also have the capabilities to deal with that and I do see the same with the circular economy as well so as part of the work that's being taken forward with the circular economy bill there's been an islands community impact assessment which shows that there are expected to be benefits for businesses in islands we're trying to support that work already whether that's through the islands programme and the funding that we produce through that I was visiting shetland to announce the projects that we denounced funding for just earlier this year and one of them was a project in particular that looks at the the circular economy there and how we can improve that so again there's no getting around it there probably will be issues but it's important that our islands feature in that work as we go forward a part of that bill is about having a circular economy strategy so I know that there will be that engagement with island local authorities going forward they they have to be a critical part of that process because I think they can also bring forward quite a lot of the solutions to what we're trying to achieve too. And just out of interest for people who are watching in can you confirm that the impact assessment has been published and that you have highlighted within that what changes might be needed to the island's plan? I know it's been undertaken I presume it's been published but I can double check that for you. Yep I think it would be useful and we will flag up where that is if we can find it easily. No problem. The other question just on that is the decarbonisation of islands which you briefly mentioned might prove problematical in some respects. Can you say where you think those problems might be when they try to keep pace with everything that's going on off islands? Yeah there is an awful lot going on at the moment in relation to decarbonisation but I think the carbon neutral islands project is a really key part of that. We published an update to where we are in the project in January of this year but it's obviously moved on since then. So we're working across six islands the carbon audits had been undertaken the climate change action plans had been published just at the start of the summer this year. The next stage in that process is in relation to the investment strategies and how we then build on the actions that are set out in those reports. So be happy to keep that out at the committee updated on that work because it of course will feed into other parts of government as I say that islands will be facing the impacts of climate change to get in the forefront of that but I do think they also hold a lot of the solutions to climate change too so I think there will be critical learning within that process that can be shared but there are also I mean when I look to the other parts of my portfolio too they will also have an impact on islands and how they adapt to climate change and how we can help them adapt to climate change to you know just talking about peatlands there whether that's forestry also in relation to agriculture reform which you know bringing forward the bill in relation to that all of that will have an impact so it's ensuring that we are of course as ever working with our islands and trying to identify the solutions as we look to implement so the bottom line is will the things we've just discussed the two issues we've just discussed cause a change to the islands plan and will there be additions to the islands plan as a result of it well it's important to remember I mean obviously so much has changed and so much has happened since the last islands plan was brought forward so we're undertaking a review of the islands plan at the moment there are a number of consultation events in relation to that too to ensure that the strategic objectives that we've set out so 13 strategic objectives there we want to make sure that those objectives are still the same if they're relevant if there are other areas that we need to look at or put more of a focus on so I think that the review is going to be really critical in identifying what any other potential areas might be okay thank you very much cabinet secretary fairly full session I'm just looking around to make sure that I haven't missed any member who wants to come in with a further question I think that's it therefore so what we're now going to do is briefly suspend the meeting but before I do so just remind you that we'll be writing the Scottish Government with our pre-budgetary observations later in the autumn so I'm now briefly going to suspend the meeting we're now going to hear from the minister for transport on the Scottish Government's transport policy sorry transport priorities for the transport policy that's quite a mix up of words as with our last session there's going to be a wide-ranging session with an eye on the Scottish Government's next budget and future recommendations that as a committee we might make on that I'd like to welcome Fiona Hyslop the minister for transport from the Scottish Government nice to see you at the opposite end of the committee rather than sitting next to me is that that'll be a new experience for us both Alison Irving the interim chief executive for transport Scotland Bill Revy the director of rail transport Scotland and Chris Wilcott the head of ferries branch for transport Scotland thank you for joining us today and as I say we are pleased to welcome you back I think you want to make a brief opening statement minister yes convener and it will be brief good morning committee and it's good to see the familiar faces from my time as deputy convener of the committee and also to recognise and acknowledge the two new members of the committee and so I'm pleased to make my first appearance at this committee as a minister following my appointment to the new role in June a fortnight ago the first minister presented the 2023-24 programme for government to Parliament and our transport package represents a clear focus on the first minister's priorities of equality opportunity and community and builds on our previous record of delivery for all of Scotland we are making our transport system more accessible we know that good public transport is a key economic enabler and provides opportunities in training education and employment we recently laid regulations to enable the bus franchising and partnership options of the transport scotland act these will come into force on the 4th of december and will allow transport authorities to begin developing their preferred options for improving their local bus services we intend to bring forward further regulations before the end of this year to begin giving these powers full effect other regulations are also planned in relation to pavement parking roadworks zero emission vehicles and we're also expecting a number of UK SIs to come before this committee starting in october we are undertaking a six month pilot that removes scotrail peak time fares the pilot will make rail travel more affordable accessible during this period and will help to identify longer term steps to reduce car use to support our island committees who rely on our ferry services we have frozen fares on the Clyde and Hebrides and northern Isles routes and will continue the construction of six major vessels and the fares fare review will report by the end of this year the review will recommend a package of measures and actions for the future of public transport in scotland and we're continuing to improve our infrastructure progression of the a9 dualling continues as a priority for this government as the first minister's announcement of a new procurement of the dualling of the a9 between tomat and tomoy demonstrates we'll also reopen the railway line to leavenmouth including new stations at Cameron bridge and leaven this month i confirmed funding of 140 million pounds that will see the delivery of the east cobride enhancement project and the barhead route electrification improvement works remain on track for completion in december and we plan to publish a refreshed rail services decarbonisation action plan so measures such as these demonstrate our determination to make our transport system ever more accessible reliable and to reduce the impact we have on the environment and climate so i look forward to working with the committee now as a minister and to hopefully build a constructive relationship as i account for scottish government policy and action but importantly where i can receive advice and recommendations from this committee thank you committee thank you very much minister i think we clarified last week who's in charge of what aspects of the ferries i think you're in charge of of the actual making them work rather than the purchase or the management of 801 and 802 till they come into service so i'm happy with that just when it comes to major road and transport infrastructure there seems to be a separation of responsibility i think that the transport and road infrastructure falls to you but the active travel and cycling infrastructure falls to mr harvey how would you take that into account how do you work together on delivering that especially say on the a nine small bit of a nine dueling that's now out for tender so the you've heard from the cabinet secretary for transport net zero and just transition she leads on major infrastructure in terms of the strategic decisions and importantly the budget decisions that will need to be made across the piece as you could expect in terms of the cross portfolio working clearly active travel is really integrated to a lot of our work and on in relation to rail i can give you a couple of examples more recently we open the sterling the you know the refurbished sterling station and that was very much aligned with active travel and including also accessibility for bus but particularly for more active travel cycling et cetera the same for motherwell at the motherwell station the rail station that was opened you referred to the a nine area and in terms of that i know there's interest in how we can ensure that there's safe routes around the a nine in particular areas and i know a number of MSPs of contact have been including john swinney about some of those issues about cycle lanes alongside the a nine so in terms of how we work together we obviously need to always look for opportunities to make sure that we can connect between active travel and rail and i think that's the big vision in terms of how we can change scotland in terms of activity if we can link active travel bus and rail connectivity more which i think everybody wants to see the challenges how do you actually deliver it and where and when and the priorities that i think is a big picture so i hope can be that gives you an aspect that we do and will work very closely together uh thank you minister that was easy questions now the difficult questions come from mark mark ruskell well thanks give you what i want to start by asking you minister about the pilot project to remove peak rail fares um and really about preparedness for that so have there been any challenges that have been identified up front by by scot rail transport scotland and um how those are being addressed as we as we move towards the second of october so clearly this is very ambitious i think it's very welcome it's a real attempt to try and make rail a choice for people who currently use car for example on on commuting we have had changes since covid in terms of how people are travelling currently over the piece there's 70 percent of the commuting passengers are back but that's not to full compliment we're seeing elsewhere in the system very strong return for example saturday is now the busiest day so in terms of preparation um the this has been work that's been on going since the announcement that this would happen we've just confirmed the dates so october the second is when that um the the pilot starts some of the issues will be on capacity and i i've made it clear to scot rail i'll need to one make sure the communication is very strong and they've also made sure that particularly on the glas wedinburgh line there will be um all 78 carriages will be used for for the for the journeys some of them have been for today that's not going to happen during this period and clearly in some of the other areas that they've added on particularly in the sort of the glasgo alexandria alexandria kind of area and that's also going to have additional carriages to come in aduth would advise people that this is very welcome i think people will see this as a big and a big step forward it'll help people with affordability particularly because for many people rail is just the cost of it's too prohibitive during that journey times but um i would recommend that everybody looks and watches the scot rail communication because they may need to adjust when they travel because i suspect there'll be far more um you know far more appetite it obviously it's a pilot so we don't know what will happen and changes clearly we've got hybrid working and this may encourage more people to come back into offices we that's part of looking at it but also we want to try and assess does this see that shift from car to to rail that in terms of that decarbonisation reducing emissions is all about yeah yeah thanks um we can move on then to the rail decarbonisation plan i think we'd do a refresh plan quite soon and i'm interested in what kind of changes we might expect to see coming through that and whether we're still going to be on track for delivering a decarbonised national rail service by i think mid point of 20 2030s so there's obviously this is a big challenge for everybody i think we're all seeing the the impacts of climate change globally and also locally and in terms of our responsibilities transport as one of the the major emitters has to take steps forward we've i've said in my opening remarks that the electrification though that's happening in barhead that's a major line that's just to be complete and by december we're anticipating and also in terms of bicycle brides that we've announced that and that that work will commence i'd also say and i know that you've got interest in the meavenmouth rail line that's ready for electrification as part of that wider work that will need to take place and clearly the big next steps would be in terms of the kind of five abradin lines but these are all subject to kind of setting out plans budgets etc but in terms of that kind of commitment and vision there are other parts of uk i think look very emuysly in what's happening in scotland because there is that determination and activity in fact i'm due to speak at a major rail conference this afternoon and there's a lot of interest from elsewhere as to what's happening lots of challenges and lots of activity and lots of commitment from the partners to deliver on that decarbonisation but you're correct in saying there'll be a refresh of that real decarbonisation plan okay another issue which you know has been highlighted particularly in the media and you know around around the whole the UK has been the closure of ticket offices now i think that i think you previously said that you know there'll be no closure of scot rail ticket offices certainly not during this session of parliament i'm just wondering if you could if you could clarify you know where government thinking is then around other changes such as reductions in in opening hours so i think it's really important and for msps in this committee and elsewhere to to be quite aware that there will be no closure of ticket offices scot rail ticket offices in scotland i think the very effective campaign that's been run across the UK for i think what would be a damaging policy elsewhere has impacted i think on people in scotland so some msps have written to me thinking that and they've got constituents worried about their local office and i want to affirm that there will be no scot rail ticket offices closing and i also have written to Hugh Merriman the UK minister to express concern i think particularly with people with disabilities i think that's a major issue that they need to to account for and what we have said that should the one office the the Avanti Glasgow central close there would still be a ability to buy tickets via our offices so i mean that's something that's there but i think in terms of that wider look at rail there are still we're still looking at how and scot rail is still looking primarily and this is an operational matter for them but they're still looking about how they most effectively deploy staff because one of the things we know and you've heard it directly from from the rail unions as well is safety issues and antisocial behaviour is an issue and we know that presence of staff whether it's on platforms or on trains make a big difference so the travel safety offices that have now been deployed we know we're making it a difference already so the issue is will will everybody always be behind the ticket desk or will they be supporting other working in the stations and that work is ongoing we're looking to try and look at that review and bring that to some kind of conclusion to give certainty i think to staff as well but we do want to work and we have worked and we have a very good and effective relationship with the trade unions and i should point out that we are not having any rail disputes currently in Scotland so that's a point of on-going discussion with rail unions then about the customer facing roles and how that can be deployed that has to continue with the unions and and i think you know the important thing is to provide that you know it certainly is the ability that will be no office closures but we want to make sure that there's kind of workable sensible operations for the stations but that has to involve unions and what their views are on that and certainly there are no strikes taking place in scotland and i want that kind of attitude and relationship to continue so that we can continue to make sure that we've got effective working with our unions okay thank you just before we leave railways if we may minister before the railways were nationalised one of the reasons that was given was that abelio wasn't meeting the public performance measures and that was always used against them now with less trains and less work going on on the railways the scottish government is still failing to meet them what's the reason for that so in terms of the performance of scott rail it is outperforming the majority of rail operators elsewhere do we want to drive improvements in performance yes my understanding and i knew that i think that in the last build it may be bill read to to maybe check me if i'm incorrect in my figures here but my understanding up to august the performance rate was at 89 percent and we were looking at to be over 90 but actually the most recent announcement was just last week i think and that also showed an increase in performance if i may minister that the announcement last week was the independent national passenger satisfaction survey and that one came through with 91 percent passenger satisfaction which is significantly above the average for the rest of the network but i think the figure perhaps the convener is asking about is the 92.5 percent passenger performance measure figure and scott rail has not delivered that but is working hard to do so in collaboration with network rail because actually in scotland we manage the railways system with a single target unlike what happened south of the border and there has been good progress again we are not satisfied because they're not yet at the target others look on what we're doing uh with a measure of jealousy and and all i'm sure other people and and comparing with one to one self to another person and saying you're better although not you're not reaching the standard that you as party is not really a measure of performance in my book so i go back to the question the uh public uh performance measure not the public satisfaction the public performance measure has not been met since nationalisation and it was one of the reasons given for nationalisation when do you think you're going to achieve it and what happens if you haven't achieved it in say six months time there's nowhere to go after nationalisation is that so in terms of the performance standards we treat them very seriously and we will make sure that in terms of the delivery that that is reinforced and i have done that already and in terms of looking at the next plans across the UK i've made it quite clear to those in charge of that that i expect that performance standard to be part of the plans and the expectations in terms of that performance so you know in terms of the passenger satisfaction is strong but rail performance in terms of um i suppose delivery that you're requiring we're not meeting the standards that we have set and that we are clear about what we expect to achieve so you're right to identify it but all i can say to you is that we are driving that that for that improvement the direction is in the right it's going in the right direction uh your issue is how the pace and how can we deliver that um and you in terms of that customer focus i think we we have seen since the public ownership and control of scott rail that that focus on customer has really been driven forward and you can see that i think any of us that regularly use the rail system will know that but in terms of that time and delivery we need to make sure we have a reliable but safe railway and we'll be looking at that performance management and i'm sure user committee will come back to that to identify how how that performance standard is being reached uh bizarrely enough minister i've been listening to those insurances 2016 since i first joined the committee that dealt with transport and trains i heard them from alex hines when he was in charge of a bellio and i've now heard them from you and in six months time i'm sure we will come back but on that note i'm going to move on to the next questions which are going to come from i think it's monica isn't it yes monica correct convener it's my turn good morning minister and officials i really welcome mark ruskell asking about the ticket offices and your reassurance minister that there will be no closures in scotland i should say that i'm speaking at the agm of disability equality scotland later today as their patron which is in my voluntary register of interests and people will really welcome that i think you said that opening hours is an operational matter for scott rail but i just wonder if you can clarify is it your view that you wouldn't want to see any reduction in the capacity and availability of the staff's ticket offices in terms of the there was an original proposal um that had been would have i've seen that reduction in in numbers that were staffed and that's now as i said there aren't going to be any closures in terms of the time and the capacity i think that's still an issue just to finally resolve how we get the service improvement that's needed give the you know that i think that kind of sense of assurance that there are staff available at stations and the issue is do you know how much time people are going to be spending behind the ticket office as opposed to helping you know people with disabilities or you know the other needs that are at a station and those have changed and they have since maybe kind of five ten years ago of what those expectations are okay well we'll keep it an eye on that thank you um i wanted to ask about anti social behaviour i was looking back at the official report from one of your last sessions as my budget here as deputy convener but it's a real issue isn't it and i know that some of the questions that you asked um are real union colleagues um you totally understand it there's been some really serious issues around anti social behaviour and violence both you know affecting the public but also the workforce that that you mentioned in your earlier remarks to Mark Ruskell so i wonder if you can say a bit more about the action that government and transport scotland has been taking to tackle this and to understand the root causes of that anti social behaviour and criminality so anybody who is committing a criminal offense should be reported and i also think that it's really important that people do that and i would encourage people to do that in relation to anti social behaviour i think this is an issue that's more wider in society and there's you know in terms of that kind of i suppose why is that happening i think there may be issues that are post pandemic in terms of um you know behaviour issues within some groups as to what was boundaries that might might not have been acceptable but people think they're acceptable now and that's maybe a complex area that needs to be looked into so i'm not going to say this is just rail specific or even just transport specific i think you see that in in different other walks of life and i'm due to meet with the community safety minister about this general issue from a government point of view in terms of operationally i know that there's been close working again with between the unions and scotrail and others in terms of trying looking at the how to manage you know anti social behaviour and i've heard more recently in one of my meetings with unions that they've been a very good meeting in terms of what can happen that matters so much not least for people feeling safe and secure and travelling but also for the workforce themselves the deployment of 34 travel safe officers has been a fairly recent development and i think the feedback from that that does seem to be helping and i think that's identifying i think that's smart thinking about identifying where and when there might be issues etc and anticipatory and but presence does make a difference i think and i think for women and girls in particular and i will take forward the previous ministers work on women and girls and safety issues and i want to bring together all everybody that's involved in that and has been there's a very good report produced at the initiation of the former minister and i want to try and pursue that because we want to to increase that but i wouldn't want to say it's just about rail i think it's there's underlying issues i think we can do tactical things within rail as we can in bus or we can do in in other areas but i think there's a general issue that i think needs to be more widely addressed as to what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour and that probably needs a more wider societal to think about is that really acceptable and should people behave like that and so i think that's i mean it's quite a general answer but to to reassure you i do think it's serious and important i have had the conversations particularly with unions on that and also with scott rail and also i want to drive forward the kind of safety issue particularly women and girls and look at practical ways that we can make railways safer for and more secure and more comfortable for everybody to to you know to travel on no that's really helpful i agree there is that wider context but just to bring it back to rail staff because it's really good to hear there's now you know over 30 travel safety officers they've got an important role hopefully that will help improve public confidence and get people using the rail network in greater numbers but rail unions including the RMT and i'm a member of the RMT parliamentary group but all the rail unions have raised concerns about their members who are very much on the front line of this so what will you be doing to look at their safety and their wellbeing in particular and how they feel about it because as we know a lot goes un reported we don't always get the full picture but as we deploy more and more workers to try and deal with issues they might be the ones that have to absorb a lot of the the abuse so what specific actions will be taken to to really protect them and to make sure that there is a zero tolerance culture across the rail network so you're right to identify you know the zero tolerance culture and that's the workplace and also for passengers and it really is a matter for scott rail as to how they implement that from a management and deployment point of view and it's an area that as I said I've already hit in my short time as minister had a number of conversations in this area and we'll continue to do that and I also think when we talk about staff we also need to look at the position of women as well and we recently had ASLEF in the in the parliament and they were celebrating their 100th women driver and also we had an event in parliament that Graham Simpson hosted and it was women in rail now if you've got front lines staff I think any staff there should be zero tolerance of bad behaviour but if we're trying to increase and try and encourage more women into rail then we have to make sure that the workplace is somewhere that they'll feel comfortable in working in so I think that's why we have to take it from different you know different perspectives and different lenses but I don't know bills are anything else specific you would want to to add to that I think just say there's a good deal of work between scott rail, bridge transport police, the transport authorities are coming together to explore whatever initiatives are are possible and there's a range of measures being deployed in plending for example discussions with rail unions about the further use of body worn cameras and extent to which that might help with the security staff it is it is an awful problem and and the the behaviors on the railway reflect the behaviors around the railway and folk come into the railway and behave in that manner so I think it is a wider issue but it's something I think there's a strong alignment of interest between scott rail managers and staff and themselves about what can we do what practically can be done to to address this I think growing concern about about and social behaviour and as many things the solutions will come from those that are in the workplace and operating there so we need to listen to them as opposed to say we think this is what will work I think that's why that dialogue is very important well issues that I'm sure we've returned to but thank you for those updates thank you thank you and it follows on from Monica Lennon's questions in terms of antisocial behaviour and violence towards staff does that make the ban on alcohol is that going to continue what's the government's thinking on that area so sorry position and it's a position that the previous minister has taken is that that should continue and I think in terms of that respective issue particularly late at late at night and for women travelling on on rail the experience of being you know on on trains where excess alcohol has been taken is a problem I think anybody who travels on rail will know that and see that and experience that so that is our current position if I remember right it did start off a sort of ban after nine o'clock I think and then was and then was then changed I'm just trying to I'm not saying I'm for it or any I'm just trying to understand the government's position on if they're going to review that and when they would review it so my understand and I might come back to you on this because it's not an area that I've had particularly focused on and bill might be able to give more kind of more recent information but it was something that had been brought in and it brought brought in at the time of the pandemic in particular and then because they were concerned about how people might behave and the spread of you know of of Covid at that time but also there was a recognition that it did change people's behaviour I was helpful in changing behaviour and so I would say that it would there are sometimes requests for it to be changed but the last time that request was made and the minister was quite clear at that time but bill might be able to give you more information it is striking it's an issue that you get a wide range of views about I think just for example taking the staff's view the drivers union as left remains in favour of the ban continuingly interestingly last time we spoke with the RMT they were in favour of the ban being lifted although that's what a very practical reflection about whether we might be better off focusing for example with transport police resource on particular trains and having a more torrent attitude other times there's a there's a big debate about this and it's something that so we've been continuing to go with ScotRail listening to the views of staff and we were proposing to bring you some further advice about that but it's not it's not an issue where there is a settled view there are strong views held for and I guess that's because obviously there is a ban at present but in terms of ScotRail staff I think they've been told they're not the police they're not there to enforce it and I guess because there's not police on every train it's and then it's difficult to enforce well I think that's maybe a good question for for ScotRail in terms of the experience that they've had but in observation that that then leads to some tensions that can cause difficulties and you know people will have seen people but in ways they shouldn't have done yeah and I guess a lot of these issues in alcohol and board anti social behaviour switched to rail this was all meant to be covered by the I think it was called the national rail conversation now I think that was meant to be launched in april so can you give me an update of what's what's taking place since since that six month period so all all these issues are in constant dialogue and I think that's what's good about our kind of operation that we do have regular dialogue with unions and management about how we improve things on rail and indeed other modes of transport in terms of the the national conversation you might be aware that obviously around about april we had the change of first minister we had change of minister and then subsequently you know my appointment so there's been quite a lot of flux and change in coming in to post my view is that we should focus on delivery rather than general conversation so all these issues don't need a national conversation for us to to engage with them I think there is that kind of opportunity for that regular dialogue particularly with the management and indeed the operators and the interest groups so for example monoclinor referred to the mobility access groups and there's a mobility access committee who've got leads particularly on rail they've been quite clear about what their views and needs are and we're obviously embarking on the peak fare removal pilot so there's a lot of activity in this area and as minister I'm quite keen to focus on delivery so I don't think that the national conversation will take place in the way that was probably previously envisaged by previous ministers but now I'm the minister my view is I need to focus on delivery and that's what I'm going to do okay so the national real conversation as we had laid out before that's no longer in place I think things have moved on a bit since then okay thank you I'll move on to my next question as a four-year-old lad I remember getting on my first intercity 125 train before I'd even started school and that was 48 years ago minister and but in Scotland were obviously still got the HSTTs in place now the real unions have expressed their concern at the crash worthiness of these trains following on from the the current derailment so what is the current plan for retiring these trains so in terms of ensuring that we have safe trains operating that's the that's essential in terms of the review that took place and indeed the continuing work of the replacement of the HSTs and indeed looking at that work that obviously is continuing but the reassurances that we've had from those that are looked particularly at the rail safety positions of the HSTs they're satisfied that they can still run and can run safely the unions are also involved in the replacement discussions are taking place and the timing for them clearly what we want to do is have real decarbonisation that would lead to replacement of the HSTs by you know electrified systems and the timing of that depends on so there's a lot for the you imagine there's a lot of things in play here and so clearly the timing for replacement will tie in with how we can you know advance the electrification there are some and I've heard calls to try and mid I suppose midstream replace them with other diesels but that then is the cost expensive of that and that would then be in terms of knock-on impact and you may not help in terms of that drive towards electrification so these are all things are in play and the most important thing is we've got a steering group that's looking about the HST replacement that is involving everybody that's necessary including unions and so as well as so would you expect the east coast electrification to happen before that happened before the trains are replaced but do you expect it to happen before 2030 in terms of the timescales for that bill can I maybe ask you to to replace the work currently as part of the the refresh of the decarbonisation action plan I was saying that these are all issues that are linked to the refresh of the decarbonisation action plan for rail about what the optimum program is for delivery so there are works under way now for example of the some of the power supply points for the electrification in five and beyond some of that have already been ordered the development work for the electrification to Aberdeen is continuing the timescales remain to be confirmed as part of this refresh work sorry this last point this bit would it be possible to have it electrified by 2030 because we're only talking about you know seven years away seems quite optimistic but maybe I'm wrong well that's part part of the work is to how do we make sure everything's aligned that we can do the work finance the work make sure that we've got the the you know the carriages and the trains that will need etc and have that timing and it's that that's so the aim is to have that decarbonisation to happen by 2030 that is what we want to try and obviously continue to achieve and that's what and you still think that's realistic I'm a politician I'm not a rail expert and that's actually why we do ask the experts to advise us in terms of that timescale of what's possible when etc but in terms of you know the drive you know that's we've got the intention to do this we just have to make sure we put all our ducks in a row in terms of making sure that that can happen and that's the realistic thing you would do and that's why you might rest well ask about it the real decarbonisation refresh plan will help do that is there anything else that Henry wants to do on that so I understand it when you took over the the rolling stock as part of the nationalisation presumably there'd be a contract for the leasing of the rolling stock which would include HST when's the first time you can get out of that contract so 2030 so we'll start with HST till 2030 because otherwise you'll be in bridge contract it will maybe possible to bring in other trains but we need to be persuaded of the economic merit of that yeah so there may be an incredible cost as well if we try and get it before 2030 I'm going to go to the depth to convener for the next question with Ben thank you convener good morning Mr Stern panel I have a question about prohibition on pavement parking drop curb parking and double parking minister will be aware of how much of a problem this is particularly in urban environments including my constituency and I'm grateful for your response to me in earlier this month but I would just be grateful for the benefit of the parliament as a whole if you could confirm that Scottish ministers remain committed to introducing a ban on parking on the pavement in front of drop kerbs and double parking and when this will take effect in terms of the implementation of the relevant provisions in the transport Scotland act 2019 so I might refer to to call us for the actual date but that's part of my openly remarks I refer to a number of SSIs that will be coming forward to the committee on pavement parking and some of the provisions within that and the transport act have already been laid to to parliament in terms of adult Alison can you maybe help in the final yeah so the current date that we're working to for the pavement parking legislation is the second of October with a view to coming into force in December so that's off the back of all the consultation work that we did over the previous sort of 18 months etc so that is the current intention for the pavement parking work so still on schedule and as it is because the December 23 is being the proposed implementation date for some time and just around that period will there be any public information or comms because I can only speak from my experience in terms of my constituency but unfortunately it seems that more people feel that it's okay to park on the pavements and there'll be some culture change required as part of this. I think there'll need to be a lot of communication around that and again it's about what's acceptable or not because currently some people think it is acceptable actually it's not acceptable now but obviously with the regulations it'll be something that will be more evident and that's something that will work closely with the local authorities colleagues on and councils is to make sure that the communication is clear to people but it's an issue that has a surprise not maybe it's surprising but you have quite a considerable amount of concern from people and the number of people that contact MSPs I'm sure and you know people should be able to use their pavements and have feel comfortable in doing that and it's yes people you know everybody but if you're wheeling in any shape or form whether it's a wheelchair or indeed mothers with buggies and you can't get through then this is not your you know how do you feel comfortable in your own environment in your own place so this is about making people feel comfortable to be active and have you know walk and cycle and wheel in their own areas not cycling on the pavements clearly but you know in terms of that wheeling aspect so there was a lot of publicity around it but when there was a remember there was Sandra White had that the legislation so at that time there was a lot of profile and publicity it's maybe something that committee may be able to help with another MSPs so when we lay the the there's different series of regulations but the 2nd of October ones for the the december 4th implementation it may be helpful if we can all try and raise the profile of it absolutely i'll be i'm warmly welcomed in in the northern leath and elsewhere in the country i'm sure and not just for the reasons that you state around mobility and and the pavements being being there for those those who use them and they shouldn't be blocked but also the quality of the paving themselves and too too many streets are being damaged by pavement parking in terms of the the weight of vehicles and so grateful that everything's running to time thank you can you thank you next questions come from ash thank you convener good morning to the panel i want to turn now to ferries so obviously the committee put together quite a comprehensive report which the minister was obviously a part of the committee at that time and we've received a response back from the government so that was just at the end of last month and it did suggest that consideration would be given to the suggested merger between CML and transport scotland ferries division so my question would be when will the Scottish government announce what the new institutional structure might look like and when that might take place so i just want to repeat this and many of you may have heard this that i was deputy convener when the ferries inquiry was taking place and took the evidence sessions but at the time of the final production of the report i was no longer a member of the committee and i was a minister and i think it was appropriate that the cabinet secretary responded to the committee's report which i thought was a very good report and i think and i hope that you recognize it was a good response in terms of addressing all the issues from the from the cabinet secretary this is absolutely live and active in terms of my consideration i think there are some competing issues and clearly when the committee made its recommendations of the governance review and quite clearly there have been recommendations for a number for a period of time of the need to look at the governance and the change and at that time angus cambal's community would review of the ferries hadn't taken place or had it was taking place hadn't reported he's now reported and that is now published on transport scotland's website their view was the merger should be between calac and seamal which is not the same as as the committee's to be fair to the committee i think the committee also said we need to be a cognisance of what the the communities want and we want simplicity we want improvement at all levels and i'm acutely aware of that having spent the summer spent you know speaking and visiting a number of island ferry communities directly obviously the committee heard a lot of evidence themselves and i think there may be some tensions which i think the committee itself alluded to as to what could happen in terms of what you might be appropriate either legally or the consequences of that so i'm looking very closely at that and i know the committee's interest as to the underpinning rationale of what is going to be able to be done as to what might be desirable to be done i would say that in terms of the value of the government the value of the government places on all the players in terms of transport scotland's seamal and calamac they all have obviously have different strengths abilities strategically and obviously the connections between transport scotland's ferries division and seamal have to be very strong and needs to be very strong and clearly in terms of that expertise that seamal have in terms of not just m ferries i would add i'm very struck by the need to look at ports and harbours as well in terms of looking at the the assets and how they're dealt with so the the factories in play will need to be the decision about governance which obviously comes when you're following the the previous project network as well but it's the governance issue the islands connectivity plan and obviously issues round the chiefs three in terms of that so these are all connected which our committee has previously identified and in terms of the decision making that i think this is a fairly major decision that we need to be taken so i will also need to make sure that cabinet is involved in that and that's the process that we're currently involved in so i can't prejudge that and tell you time because i'm kind of dependent on decisions making you know across government and but you will you will hear and you will hear fairly soon so we'll be the the second to know about it then probably that's i think i think in terms of i need to tell parliament obviously but obviously i need to get through through cabinet but that would be a you know we need to announce that to parliament and clearly with the interests of this committee would make sure the committee and alert the committee when that's that's due okay the Scottish Government has set out that they don't think that the independent ferry regulator is the appropriate way to go forward so can i ask you then how do you think it's possible to ensure i think what the committee and i think communities as well we're looking for is a strong oversight of these lifeline ferry service provisions so i think as the committee knows a lot of these issues stem from the need for resilience in the fleet so the focus on those six ferries is and the delivery of them is is absolute but within that then it becomes the operation and i think in terms of how that can be improved in terms of driving up standards of management and communication i think there are issues in terms of calmax communication and relationships and they know that and when i met with them i made clear my views and my concerns about their lack of customer focus but they themselves have acknowledged that and they're making steps to to improve what they do and clearly at the end of the day that's an issue for the board who have oversight of the of calmax themselves the way i think that we can try and address some of these issues is in the next chiffs 3 contract and whoever would be delivering that in terms of what the expectations are of the standards and i think some of the points that are particularly strongly made in the community's board report in terms of what those expectations would be we can try and build them into the contract similarly the committee's report themselves had a number of issues within that and also the principles by which any new contract should be judged so in terms of driving that change in improvement that can and should be done through that contract change as well i also requires acute infestidious ministerial oversight although obviously not interference to things that are the matter for the board or indeed the management and i'd like to reassure the committee having spent a considerable amount of time looking at the various issues i will take an absolute very keen and active interest in that that's good to hear the Scottish government has indicated that a decision on whether to tender or directly award the next Clyde and Hebrides ferry service contract has yet to be made so if i can ask the minister when does she think that decision will be made and do you intend to award calmax ferries a contract extension to allow for any future arrangements to be established so similarly to your first question is to the governance issue and when that we we resolved the these are all part of connected issues in relation to what happens to the governance what happens to chiefs 3 and also what happens in terms of that kind of wider improvement delivery exercise on the internet into the islands connectivity plan so these are all part and parcel so i'm looking at them in the round i think that was a recommendation from the committee that these things should be looked at in the round because some of them some of these issues have been dealt with sequentially and so i can't give you that to you know certainty update but i can tell you that in terms of my priorities i'm you know this is this is certainly something that i'm having regular and constant contact with my officials in order to get us into position that i can make that announcement and as i've said to my answer obviously i know the committee's keen interest to know that and will alert you to to when that will be as well okay thank you thank you minister can i just push you a little bit on that we are running out of time as far as uh going out tender for the contract and it was one of probably i i i felt one of the most difficult decisions to make is to make a recommendation that it was awarded again to CalMac and it's probably some of the things that islanders have mentioned that they think how can you give it to CalMac when they have been so bad at delivering what they've been delivering for the last contract period so could you give me a i think i want to push you on when we're going to get an answer and also i'd like to know some of the key things that you're going to do to reassure islanders that if it is a direct award that you will be right on top of the delivery of that service because the figures we got from CalMac were opaque say the least on their delivering of standards so i'm acutely aware of the timescale for this both in terms of the provision for re-tendering our indeed extension et cetera i'm not going to give you any information about what i'm going to recommend to to my cabinet colleagues as to what we should do on that but you will be one of the first to know because of your responsibilities and your interests so that's as much as i can tell you just now in terms of driving the improvement i think you're right to identify the tensions here and there are merits and demerits clearly in terms of the recommendations of of the committee and i think you acknowledge that i think in terms of the views and i would lean heavily on my experience of talking to to various committees in meetings and indeed in visits over the last few months and i think they want to see service change and improvement some of that is about attitude and behaviour and it's about relationship management i won't underestimate and i'm not going to shy away from the fact that the lack of resilience in the fleet has consequences and it's CalMac who are having to deal with that and i would also make it quite clear that the front line staff of CalMac are continuously supported and praised by communities because quite often they are the ones that have to kind of deal with the major issues and there are changes that i would expect to see particularly on some of the business to business aspects i think freight for example we have to recognise the economic value and the importance as i know the committees has done about the role of freight going forward and indeed if we do want to see the expansion of economic activity in our islands because we need to see that and that's happening already from renewable energy or indeed dialogue from for whisky for example that that's built into the changes and improvements and indeed service standards and in terms of how whoever operates the i either CalMac currently or whoever would operate it in the future would have to deliver on so these are service standards that we could build into any future contract and i think it's also incumbent on the board and i've met with the chair of the board that i would expect from them because i can't and i shouldn't micromanage the CalMac themselves my relationship is with the board and so i have to make clear what my expectations are and i can reassure you that on my very first meeting with the chair of the brain i made clear that customer focus was one of one of my key key aspects i would want to have things delivered on and so therefore you know i know you want me to answer everything now i can't but i will make sure that you're the first to know when those decisions are finally taken and probably fed say minister the committee have requested a debate on ferries and the report that we've provided which would not be unsurprising we haven't been given a date yet but when we get a date i'm sure you'll be able to give us complete answers to all the questions at that stage i will go to the next questions which come from Jackie Dunbar Jackie you good morning minister and your officials i'm going to focus on the fair fair fairs review today if you don't mind are you able to provide an update on the progress of the fair fairs review i know it's a tongue twister and are there any findings beginning to emerge that you can you can possibly share with the committee this morning so um yes there are indeed i'm meeting with officials just this afternoon to set out the next stages to make sure that we can report as we've intended by the end of this year i think the fairs fair review is a bit of a tongue twister and if i wanted to make any changes i might change the title it's probably not least because it's not just about fairs it's actually about how we make sure that our public transport system is accessible and affordable and probably because we have got such a i suppose fragmented system between what's deregulated for example in bus what is obviously nationalised now in terms of rail and looking at obviously the ferries issues as well because there's ferries issues what's subsidised what has concessionary travel and unlike many other countries who have a probably more varied system of concessionary travel we have two million people in scotland who've got free concessionary bus travel for example just now and so the fairs fair review is looking at all those issues that there are plenty of suggestions of anomalies of and i know that's an issue that's been raised here for example about accompanied people who've got sight impairments for example on and challenges and disabilities on rail and so there's lots of individual things under 22s on ferries for example is there something can be done from the inter-island aspect so there's lots of individual things but what we also want to try and do is to try and set some kind of parameters of what a fair system might look like clearly in terms of the operation affairs they get set in advance of a period so the idea is to to bring forward the report by the end of the year to make recommendations that can be started not completed but started to be implemented from the 24 to 25 thank you and also can you can you tell us today what engagement transport scotland have officials have had with their UK counterparts to maybe hear and learn any lessons from the two pound bus fare cap into it was introduced in january so i can maybe i don't know if i'll ever want to say what if there's been any contact at officials level and what i can tell you is that just last monday i was i met with Richard Holden MP who's the transport boy the UK minister that has transport responsibilities and we were actually to discuss their experience and so we'll exchange that and we also have a and i'm trying to remember the title of it it's inter ministerial group which has brings together wales and and also obviously the UK and the northern island executive but not ministerial at this stage and that's one of the things i want to do is to make sure that we're learning from each other from lots of different aspects of their experience including on bus issues as well because every's doing things slightly differently and understandably we have a major you know term of expenditure 300 million pounds on concessionary travel you see currently the under 22s and currently is 84 million journeys that are taking place and in terms of the impact of that we know that we've got many families dealing with cost living issues and that's really helping in terms of that activity and in terms of helping families i also heard and this is i suppose you what does it mean to individuals and i visited in my own constituency children first hub and they were telling me how the under 22s bus travel is helping some of their looked after children and in terms of accessing basic things like health provision that they might not have gone to had it been more difficult so i think there are consequences and impact and we know that obviously for older people that idea of being able to to visit and travel and be active is really important so part of looking at the value of concessionary travel don't underestimate the impact particularly for individuals when we're looking at it so we can talk about 2 million people but that individual i was being told about that can benefit because as i looked after a child they're managing to access provisions that perhaps they might not otherwise that's a value that you can't put in you know in pound shillings pence so it'll be um it's on track i will have um you know more information from this afternoon going through with officials uh stages for delivery to have output for you to to assess but it's not just about fares if i can give you that kind of sense it's how do we actually have that kind of um view as to how public transport can serve us but Allison do you want to come in on that i think maybe just a couple of points just to add to that so um we are expecting to get some of the evaluation from the under 22 free bus if we don't have it already it'll be coming in shortly and we'll use that to help inform sort of any recommendations that we make to ministers but i think as the minister's already outlined we've got quite a different offer in terms of the level of support that we provide to passengers and bus services in scotland so from our perspective and kind of the analysts that support all of that work we look to draw on as much information and evidence as we possibly can so the two pound cap for example has been the approach that the UK government is taking in england but in a very different context to the way in which we're operating so when we're looking at all of these different approaches we're trying to draw out the best in these and then present that to minister second as a coherent and integrated approach to the way in which we pay for transport and when i say we pay i mean society you know what government contributes what passengers contribute et cetera across the moats so that is the challenge yeah and i think also the challenge as well is to get the routes in there as well because while we've got the under 22s if they can't get to two places for work or or et cetera then it's kind of defeating the purpose a little bit and that's another days i agree and that's why accessibility is as important as affordability and it's why and i suspect from the figures i've seen though this evaluation will demonstrate some of the areas that have got and the the take-up is fantastic and particularly for those that can travel independently the kind of over 12s and then the figures are very very strong and but the areas that have got less availability of buses than you have lower areas of uptake and that includes my own constituency as have i mine so i'm going to contact you out with this committee in regards to the i should have invited that in my final question and you touched on it very slightly regarding some countries such as austria and germany have recently introduced national and regional traffic tickets that provide access to almost all public transport across our country for a low monthly cost can i ask is this something that the scottish government have given any consideration to introducing here so i'm expecting to see that as part of the kind of the comparators that allison everton talked about i think that's what's interesting about that that's reduced fares it's not it's not no fair it's some fair and it's to encourage activity news what we've done as part of the work is some international benchmarking where we've looked to again we've looked to places like germany austria denmark and the types of approaches that they take to their ticketing systems but again just sort of banning it back in the reality of the the complexity of the transport system that we operate in how do we then make that work for us and again that'd be something that miss us up we'll get an insight into later on this afternoon but there's some good stuff out there so thank you that's very convenient to link it very much thanks checkie uh douglas you've got some questions i'll leave yeah thank you i've got some questions on evie georgian minister so i'm just trying to work out how the scottish Government can play its part and how the private sector also play their part so we can have a comprehensive charging network now and into the future so we set out with one of the first things that it is as a minister back in june was the evie vision for scotland where we're looking to work with the private sector to see an additional 6000 evie chargers put in before 2026 in terms of the current numbers we understand that about 20 000 have been supported domestically and business by government support in terms of going forward clearly local authorities are taking responsibility and trying to make sure that they've got full coverage in their own areas and in terms of that investment i know that you know how we work with the private sector is going to be very important charge point has been you know supported by the Scottish Government for some time that can continue in terms of that contract i think until 2026 around that area in terms of where we are there was a report produced by the department of transport in terms of the what they thought was the numbers of evie's themselves that probably is a underestimation i think by about 16 percent in terms of the numbers that we have we've got far more evie as in electric vehicles on our roads than probably was anticipated from from that initial research and we're trying to work that's one of the things we're going to do with the other ministers is try and make sure we've got a good benchmark in terms of how we're monitoring numbers of evie's on our roads but also in terms of that charging we've got a very good rate of charging compared to the rest of the UK outside London which is very strong but i think as everybody knows we need to try and improve that and that that shift from initial subsidy and i know i've had plenty of letters from MSP saying hang on a second the price is going up well that's because you know you've got private operators and now you're operating systems that previously had a great deal of subsidy but it is that trying to you know you're not getting electricity for free now you're going to have to try and obviously get that kind of additional support so that which i'll make sure it's sent to the committee it might it might have come to the committee before you remember but the evie vision that is about how we work with the private operators and i actually launched the evie vision in michelin park in dundee and i know the committee had previously visited and saw some of the innovative work there and i also saw a mobile evie charging facility that was a kind of quite an innovation that can be used in rural and remote areas where there's been problems in the past and also for events etc so there's quite a lot of private activity in this area but i think it's a work in progress in terms of making sure that we have the the kind of roll out that we all want to see because we had taken some evidence suggesting that it was difficult for private firms to actually come in and invest in evie charge and is that something you've heard also because i wasn't quite sure what that was in relation to well you need to let me know what that was and you can move further up that but annison do you want to come in so i think that's an interesting reflection so if i take us back to 2011 i think when we started to take quite a proactive role in the evie charging roll out in scotland and we've taken quite an interventionalist approach i think we're now and that's what's set out in the vision at that pivot point where we need to be more mindful of what the role of government is in supporting evie charging so that there is a charging network across the country but provides the space for commercial operators to come in and that's the work that we are doing hand in hand with local authorities and regional transport authorities for each of those areas to come up with the kind of the proposal that they think best fits the area and then that's the sort of the the steps that will then take to roll that out because as you know local decision making local intelligence actually is probably the point that we're at and also ensuring that the investment that local authorities have made in the evie charging infrastructure is also then supported with the right level of commercial intervention as well so we're at that pivot point i think it's a priority and in terms of where we are with evie charge and the numbers are you happy with where we are there obviously we probably all like to be faster but are we on track really i think we are in terms of you know we're about 73 is it 73 per 100 000 or whatever is our figure where the second strongest outside London in terms of provision i don't think i think we'll need to have far more i think everybody understands that so how we do that and how we do that generating private funding for it because we've already invested about 65 million pounds which is a lot of money to help kickstart that interventionist aspect so i'm not going to say i'm satisfied because i don't think that would be reasonable because i think everybody knows that we need to improve that to give the confidence for everybody for travel and also i think one of the things we want to try and look at i know the committee has been interested before is how do we promote tourism using electric vehicles and that again that we need people to have confidence that they can do that and i think we've got a a some way to go in that but i think if we make that as our our driving aspiration that also can help rural areas in terms of making sure that we've got EV availability for those that want to hire and travel across our beautiful countryside using electric vehicles okay thank you convener thank you douglas next questions come from monica thank you kinvener minister i'm just wondering how important is bus to the government meeting its target of reducing car kilometres by 20 percent by the end of the decade i think bus is crucially important in what we do i think there's obviously different parts of country have different types of connectivity but for many parts of scotland the bus in terms of you know in terms of passenger usage it's you know in terms of our percentages like 79 of people who use public transport use bus so it's already a very important part of our our transport mix and in terms of how i think it's that connectivity when i was talking about the fairs fair review that idea of accessibility and affordability and going back to the point in fact the convener's point right at the beginning about active travel but also about how we integrate transport hubs whether it's railway stations et cetera with our bus network is really really important so the work for example that took place in lannockshire with the motherhood station that was really important to align and the work in partnership with the regional transport authority there and how we could make sure that there is alignment with bus and we make sure it's easy for people to to use bus to connect to rail to et cetera i think the challenges we have as i think everybody's quite aware of despite a considerable amount of subsidy into the bus system and there has been and that's been important we have our deregulated system and so people when companies can decide which routes to run et cetera and they're running them on a commercial basis unless they're subsidised by local authorities so they have to make decisions about that and that's where some of those challenges are so the work on the community bus fund which is also an agreement with local authorities and there'll be information about that published fairly soon and that's helping them work out some of their priorities and the bus partnership fund as well i think the bus partnership fund if i was honest is a bit kind of probably slower than i would have expected in terms of how that can be delivered to get more focus on bus the more people use bus and the more that bus can have priorities which i know is quite controversial in some places but it makes it more reliable and the more reliable buses are the more people are likely then to use them rather than their cars and so there is that kind of chicken and egg a lot of this work is with you know has to work with regional transport partnerships with councils themselves i've met with the cause of the lead in this area a councillor Gail McGregor a number of times since i've come into post so that relationship is really key because its local councils are determining where they want to have that priority for buses so that's quite a kind of broad answer but maybe touches on a number of issues in the bus area okay no that's helpful so we all need to get on the bus a bit more often putting aside the pandemic which is not easy to do but if we put the pandemic to one side we can see there's been a decline in bus passenger numbers you know a trend that did predate Covid that's despite the fact that when the part of the Scottish government and partners there's been a lot of pro bus investment pro bus policy so what really explains this decline in bus patternage in Scotland so that was a specific area that the bus task force the former transport minister put in place had looked at and that brought everybody together the operators and transport Scotland they're everybody together looking at a number of issues in bus and i chaired the final meeting of that earlier in the summer the i think the key about now bearing in mind we've also had those 84 million journeys by under 22 so that has obviously helped boost numbers what seems to be the kind of the challenges over 60s have not come back to bus as strongly as other passengers have come back to different other types of transport and that could be for a variety of reasons it could so in terms of what that means that probably needs a bit more particular study in terms of behaviours but it could be that the made decisions that they prefer driving by car because post pandemic a number of people are still concerned about health and general issues or you know they got used to doing that and haven't come back and it could it could be for a number of different reasons perhaps their work patterns had changed you know in terms of that age group maybe they decided because we know that group many of them have decided not to go back to work even if they were eligible you know and wanted to go back to work so i i think there's a number of different areas so the over 60s in particular is what i think would be a target to try and get them back to bus some of the discussions we've had is if they are using for leisure how do we try and improve that but then that's timings and availability of bearing in mind remember what i was saying about the busiest time for rail is actually now saturdays which again you know trying to interpret that from a behaviour point of view why is that well a lot of people if they are hybrid working actually do want to get out the house and do something that we can etc so you know there's there's different behaviours here which there's i'm sure there's kind of policy analysis looking at but that's the main concern around buses that age group in particular and how to encourage them back on and they also have to feel safe and comfortable and confident to use the bus service and that means about reliability as well which obviously is an issue for many modes to give confidence for people to travel by public transport okay so there are a lot of different strands to this you've touched on behaviours attitudes importance of affordability alignment if i can look at accessibility because you know many of yous i think support the expansion of free bus travel for 22 year olds and under but what about those communities where the availability of bus has reduced i will mention Hamilton you would expect them to mention the the x1 which i have written to you about recently but for those people over 60 and 22 under who definitely want to get on a bus and the service is no longer there and we've heard including your time on the committee minister about communities feeling like they're now bus deserts because there simply isn't a bus to get on and what has been done you know you've probably got by the toughest jobs in government and we all wish you well but what has been done to really look at those areas where the alignment is really at a counter now because yeah we've got you know free bus travel but the buses are disappearing we've got companies saying big shortages of driver as well and again there's big factors post Brexit issues as well but are we really getting everyone around the table to look at this in a joined up way because when i speak to people in my local community in Hamilton they just can't understand it an express bus service like the x1 that would take you from Hamilton to Glasgow no longer exists in it and i really made your town at a time when people are being asked to leave the car at home to that active travel you know think about what you're doing in terms of climate and nature emergency but the infrastructure and services people need are just simply not there so the main thing to remind ourselves of in this area is that buses are deregulated that these are private commercial operators working and it doesn't mean that we can't try and bring everyone together to take a strategic view which is why the bus task force was established to try and address the number of these issues including the availability of bus drivers because i know that for a period actually it was availability of bus drivers that was leading to the withdrawal of services and not necessarily that they weren't custom for that and that's an area i know that you've written to me about and i know there's been very active work in this area in recruitment it was an area that i discussed with from a kind of i suppose the the immigration aspects in relation to whether we can have it in terms of the access list for priorities for entry i know that was something that we've pursued sometime with Richard Holden the MP my discussion with him we he was discussing for example what we might be able to progress on helping eukranians drive and our buses and the systems that are involved in that so he's going to update me on that i know in different areas there have been local campaigns to recruit drivers so i know in Westlothian the bus companies together with the council together with the college did a big promotion to encourage people to to drive buses the feedback on that is from the operators is that there's less pressure now than there had been in the past in terms of driver recruitment it doesn't necessarily mean that you then don't get drivers poached from one company to another and that can cause issues so addressing it from that point of view in terms of the connectivity point you've got to then identify when when when do people intervene and when don't they and who has the power to intervene and who has the power to subsidise and that's the powers that the councils now have and they have had powers for some time to to set up their own companies that's not happened to date the franchising regulations i said have just been laid so that's something i know that the committee will be interested in and to take the example of the x1 because i knew that you might ask about it so i tried to find out a bit of a history on it my understanding was that the decision to withdraw the service is one that first bus took in 2020 and that Strathclyde partnership for transport so SPT obviously the transport authority assessed the need for replacement service following the cancellation of the x1 however due to other transport links in the area including rail and bus links this ono case to put in place any form of fixed route supported service that subsidy so that was a decision made by the relevant transport local authority in that area whether they'd want to make a different decision now that would be again that's up to them but i think that overall point and it goes back to my answer to jack in the bar in terms of fairs fair i think that you're right to make the point about accessibility because if you haven't got a bus to go on how can you then make that kind of shift and there are many rural and it's not just rural it's semi rural areas where people have to riot rely on cars to get to work because there are no buses that run at the time that they want to do that and so there have been you know there have been powers and there are powers for councils to subsidise buses and prioritise them and i don't want to just say it's up to councils and that's it because i think they under they are under pressure as well but bus has to be an integral part of this solution and i think the lesley fair deregulated market has not served us in the way it can you know that and we might have expected so therefore how do we help councils take more control over the key routes that they think are important and that's why these regulations that are part of the transport act 2019 are coming forward so a lot that's really helpful and again we'd love to have you in hamilton to listen to residents because taking the bus away in 2020 during the pandemic was really a cynical move but it needs to be looked at afresh and i appreciate it's not sitting entirely on your desk but it needs that collaborative approach on the powers because i think we all welcome them for local government but the resource has to to match that so the community bus fund 74 million from scottish government that's for all the local authorities glasgow has said that to take control of a bus operator would cost them over 200 million is the 74 million enough in your assessment is that being looked at what more can be done financially to support local authorities so in terms of the sort of initial phase of the community bus fund it's not the figures i've got are much smaller than the ones that you're referencing and that's to do with and that's five million capital and then 750k in terms of the revenue that can help support that and that gives them the initial planning and what they might want to do and they might want to to effect in terms of that very very local community bus fund i think you're probably talking more about issues around bus partnerships and what can happen there and the initial spend is obviously on their plans of what they think would be effective and that also is bus prioritisation but how they might work in partnership and then there's obviously the and in terms of the funds that are available i think that's when you're referring to you know i'll get the name and i can write back to the committee if i've got this wrong but in terms of my understanding is that's the initial funding to help work out what the priorities are in partnership with private operators to run certain areas and subsidise them in terms of the scale of this for franchising it won't happen overnight we're not saying it will but we've got the legislative backing to enable it to happen but i think these are the key choices and you as a committee will need to take a view as to if there is public funds you what should be supported and what should be subsidised and you know there's lots of subsidies goes into lots of different types of public transport but if you know we as a government you as a committee the Parliament decides that bus needs to be prioritised and that's something you can clearly communicate and and i'd refer that the cabinet secretary has responsibility for the budget for our area but i think again i refer to my point advice from this committee is always helpful in terms of what priorities are needed in terms of public transport but you can't have everything yeah and that's the big decisions that we're going to have to appreciate the community giving me quite a bit of time Monica I know you want to ask one more question i'm going to have to slightly push everyone for short questions and short answers because there are other people who want to come in and um that said Monica off you go well maybe this could be followed up in writing because i appreciate we might have got muddled there so we can get that clarified in writing but the 500 million that relates to the bus priority measures is government still committed to that investment and when will we see measures delivered if there's no time to get into that we can get that in writing i think it might be helpful if i if i write to the committee i'll write to committee as a whole on the the bus funding issues i didn't want to kill all the conversation but thank you thank you apologies could be there i should have said that there will be a chance to get back at you i'm sure minister on that note i want to bring in mark had some questions or buses i think actually all my questions were pretty much answered in terms of franchising and municipalization um i did want to just go on to final question convener if that's okay uh yes i mean i've got some questions from i've got a question from ben and from douglas so if it's uh ben's been waiting quite patiently if it's non-related to bus i'd rather come to ben douglas and then you if i may so ben i've asked my question convener uh there was another one i thought you had oh yes you have asked it on pavement party so douglas it's up to you thank you convener minister you mentioned the a nine in your introduction but you never actually mentioned the a 96 that's um it's obviously been admitted from the programme for government the png calls that a a betrayal to the northeast they're right aren't they no and the a 96 was in the programme for government if you want to reread it and we're happy to to send it to you i'm sorry you obviously didn't get your question i think you had a question last week in the chamber on the a 96 which you'll have received a written response from and unfortunately the president officer didn't have time i think for both of us to to have the question and answer and so in terms of the work on the a 96 there is the the on-going review the review the first stage of that was published in december and my understanding was that there was a session in febru where i think it was facilitated by jillian martin msp and it had the review group and the minister and north and northeast msps were invited to that and the next steps were laid out for them i think the challenge for the a 96 was a sheer number of different options that were put forward there were 11 000 options put forward so in terms of what i think you're probably interested in is when that's going to report and because obviously you know as you probably alluded to it should have reported before now but it couldn't because of the sheer number that of options that i've had to go through and in terms of the appraisals of those 11 000 options we're looking at producing that appraisal particularly of the 16 retained options in order that that report that you're expecting can be produced because back in 2011 it was a scottish government commitment commitment that would be fully dual between nimbarness and abdine by 2030 is that still on the table well the commitments are in the programme for government it is a priority for the scottish government to deliver on the review to look at the assessments there to make sure that we have the improvements and currently our proposal is to dual the a 96 with the priority being in a separate section is the inverestinearn which is more advanced than the other the other workers you'll be well aware of but is it doable to fully dual by 2030 as was the scottish government commitment i think the sensible thing is to see what the review says in terms of the assessments of the options because clearly whatever options are then recommended will have an impact in terms of the timescale for production of that as will the capital availability for that and as the member knows in terms of and it's not i'm not just referring to a 96 i'm referring to all of the transport budgets you'll know that we're seeing a seven percent reduction in the capital funding of the scottish government over the coming years because there was no inflation proofing to the capital funding and also you'll be quite aware that construction inflation has been accessed even of of regular inflation so there are challenges for all construction so i think it would be remiss of me to give you a commitment as timescales until we've done the necessary piece of work and that will be reported as soon as the assessment is done. It was more minister there is a commitment but it's obviously what doesn't appear to be being met and you'll understand why i'm asking the questions last thursday the road was closed in both directions near Huntley another serious accident and an foi that just came out just yesterday showed that in the last four years there's been 11 fatalities on the a 96 between Inverness and Aberdeen and 82 serious injuries and i think as it gets delayed even more you know we're letting families down that are being seriously impacted by by what's happening on this road and that is the reason why i'm pushing it and that's why i'm trying to get the answer is 2030 still a commitment and that's not a commitment you seem to be able to honour at this time. You're asking about the timescale for the review that will indicate what the review options say what is the best way to do this how to make sure that that is that the improvements that are made are the best improvements to make sure the safety issues are addressed i think you're absolutely right to focus on that i think that's a really important area for attention but i'm not going to preempt what i get in terms of that review options clearly we want to to meet timescales that have previously been committed to but i think if you want to look at what the first minister has said in his programme for government in the written published programme for government you'll see that a 96 is recognised as the priority that it is but the commitment by 2030 doesn't seem to be a commitment that's there just now you're talking about your timescales that were in 2011 coming out you know of a period that is 12 years ago i understand that all governments need to be held accountable this government has been in power for a considerable amount of time and we have had to focus on a number of major transport areas that the review has taken place it's very detailed considerable responses by the public we can't ignore that in terms of our work so that's why it will be done diligently and appropriately and you will again receive that as soon as that assessment has been done and those stages the stag appraisals of that initial appraisal the preliminary option appraisal the detailed options appraisal and post appraisal all have to take place to progress this work and that's exactly what i would expect i understand that minister and that's why i'm saying that 2030 is completely unrealistic now because of the delays that this government has caused i know you've got constituency interests this i know how important it is to you but i'm not going to engage in in different opinions you might want to say that i'm not going to say that i'm going to be open and honest now that's that and i think in fairness you've had a good crack at getting an answer on that you've got an undertaking for a review not for july by 2030 and that's about as far as i think you're going to get to the stage mark you wanted to come in on a question i think yes i did actually and um i mean the minister would have noticed in in wales on sunday they had their national roll out of 20 mile an hour the default speed limit went from 30 to 20 and there's been a lot of work that the Welsh councils have been doing to get prepared for that i wanted to ask about the the bute house agreement commitment to see all appropriate roads in scotland switch to 20 mile an hour by 2025 and just what progress councils are making here in in the roll out of 20 mile an hour to save lives and make our communities safer friendly places to live so again this is a policy that absolutely requires the you know the co-operation and enthusiasm and deployment of local councils in doing this and we're doing it in a slightly different way from Wales i mean Wales was everything all at once and i actually spoke to the Welsh minister lee waters about their launch just last week and i think there's different views and opinions as whether that will be the most effective way at least everybody will know about it because it's a national all at once roll out in scotland it's been more of a phased approach and part of that is to make sure that the appropriate roads are being designated in Wales it's by exception so it's 20 miles per hour unless there's an exception in scotland it's been far more i think consideration by look by local councils as to which roads should be 20 Highland council are being a pathfinder in this and are already rolling out 20 miles per hour we know the arguments and obviously that's why i think that the member had put forward his private members bill was in terms of the again a safety issue in terms of life saved saved et cetera and injuries and averted in terms of that roll out that's already started in many years and i know many councils have drawing up their lists of where that is but they're working with communities as to what's appropriate and what's not appropriate because we've had 20 miles per hour areas in the past some of them seem to be appropriate but some actually cause more difficulties so i think that kind of considered view is really important so they are being rolled out by local councils and the commitment is still there and they're working on that and again i've been pleased to hear that local councils are pretty enthusiastic about some of these changes they want to see happening people have got a different view of their towns now than they've had in the past i think that was probably one of the experiences of the pandemic people liked and did and had to in a sense use their towns and walk around more you know more often than the previously done and being able to do so in a way that's a bit safer we've talked about the pavement parking earlier on i think this is similar area as well so it's it looks as if it's on track but it's not necessarily my gift but it is one where i'll be again and probably my regular discussions was council McGregor and council leeds and also regional transport partnerships to see how it's going but so far it looks from highland that that's progressing and progressing well yeah thank you transport bills said it had to be done by local councils not by central government say that was the way it was agreed by the parliament in the last session i think i'm correct in saying sorry jackie want to come in yeah it was a supplementary to douglas lumson's question i was just going to ask for your view round about it was regarding the timescales for the a 96 and i was just going to ask round about 20 years ago moray council voted against the elgin bypass and would that have an impact on the timescales now oh well i don't go back 20 years but the member might and she might be able to inform the committee on that look there are key areas that need and certain the bypassing are absolutely acutely aware over a long period of time i think that would have been disappointing if they not that back at that point but you know what that's time passed i've got to deal with my entry now computer you know and i've got to deal with what's in front of me and i will try and be as i'll try and share as much as i can when i can but i don't want to give you information that i then have to come back and say that's incorrect so if you're not getting all the detail you want i'll give my commitment to try and follow up things and writing where we're required okay i'm just looking around see if there's any more questions well just before you think it's all over minister i want to go back to ferries because i want to clarify what the actual committee report said for absolute clarity as far as the direct award of the contract was was it it was on the recommendation that it is acceptable to communities and there are no legal barriers that was the caveat in the report and angus cambell who was on the community board said it's not acceptable to communities so how you're going to square that circle with less than 16 months to go part of that is is engaging with angus cambell and the community's board as to what their expectations are and i have met with them since they produced their report and had discussions well what is it they actually want and what they really want is improvements in the management of of calmac and at senior level and i think they've been absolutely clear as to what that requirement is i think the your second point about the second condition within the committee is also really important because there are unintended consequences of making certain decisions and so they have to be robust which i think is what the committee was also indicating so it's difficult because on the one hand you've got the committee saying one thing and then you've got the committee's board saying another and i'm left with the decision to try and navigate between them and that's why the advice from the committee is really important but it's not the only advice which i think the committee itself recognised so sorry just so i understand this so the if the community board gets the board of calmac replaced they're happy to recommend a direct award of contract is that what you're saying i'm not going to speak on behalf of the committee board they are perfectly capable of speaking themselves that's not what um that i've i've raised or discussed with them okay and just also just when you were talking about if i could say about the uh rearrangement of the structure with transport scotland at calmac uh and seamal uh the report recommendation by this committee just just as a matter of fact recommend reflected the recommendation of the rec committee report so that's two committees that said it and and whilst that some people may hold out against it i think it's quite clear that two committees in two different sessions of this parliament have have recommended those changes so unless there's any other questions uh douglas you're not coming in on the a96 so is that okay no douglas thank you community it is brief it's just on the fair fair review i wish we would change its name i believe that is a travel companion for blind persons card for buses but not real is that something would be looked at again by the government so when i listed the number of issues that there's individual issues there's a sort of general approach which i think the strategic approach for i think it's really key and then there's individual issues that have been raised and travel issues for rail was some one that i identified earlier in my contribution i said say that was one of the issues that i know people have concerns of because it does happen in some modes but rail was the the concern that had been raised and i have replied to number of msps saying that that would be considered as part of the fairest fair review okay thank you thanks community and it really is all over now minister thank you very much for giving evidence to the committee this morning and i'm briefly going to suspend the meeting to allow you to leave and for us to prepare for the next part of it committee members back in five please thank you welcome back everyone our next item of business is consideration of a type one consent notification for the retained EU law revocation and reform act 2023 revocation and sunset application regulations i think regulations 2023 this is a proposed UK statutory instrument where the UK government is seeking the Scottish government's consent to legislate in an area of devolved confidence on the 5th of september the cabinet secretary for transport net zero and just trans physician notified the committee of the UK si the committee's role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish government's proposal to consent to the UK government making these regulations within devolved competence and in the manner that the UK government has indicated to the Scottish government if members are contempt for the for consent to be given the committee will write to the Scottish government accordingly in writing to the Scottish government we have to an option to propose questions or asked to be kept up to date on relevant developments so my question i guess is are there any views from members and i would just before we do that remind committee members that we have written to the Scottish and UK governments on relation to this and responses that were asked within a reasonable timeframe which i believe expires tomorrow so if there is any questions or comments i'm very happy to take the mark yeah that that's a helpful piece of information convener i mean i'm content to agree with the Scottish government's recommendation here however i was a bit alarmed by the letter which we received from the cabinet secretary particularly around the national air pollution control programme legislation the laws around that which are not included in this measure to retain EU law and i think cabinet secretary said that this is a last opportunity to seek preservation of the air quality provisions through UK UK SI and by choosing to emit these air quality provisions the UK government is creating unnecessary uncertainty while it develops replacement proposals and then she went on to say that although the provisions fall within devolved competence in relation to air quality it would not be possible to make a preservation SSI in relation to these provisions as they confer functions on the UK secretary of state not Scottish ministers so i am i'm really concerned because we are reaching a cliff edge here of 31st of october where secretary of state could retain important EU laws that protect human health and protect our environment yet it looks like these laws are not going to be retained i mean clearly UK government and indeed the Scottish government would have the opportunity to work together and bring forward a replacement framework that would help protect our human health and the environment but there's no sign of that so these laws will go and of course it's not just you know parliamentarians that raise these concerns environmental standards Scotland have raised concerns and NGOs as well so i am really concerned about this cliff edge as we know air pollution does not respect boundaries it crosses boundaries so having a UK framework is important as it is across Europe and notwithstanding the fact that this committee has written to both the UK government and the Scottish government i'm really concerned that this law looks like it's set to go on the 31st of october and we have at this point today no no understanding about what will be brought in to protect our human health and environment in the interim period for however long that might be i'm just looking around the table if there's any other comments i think that the point mark is well made i mean the fact that the committee has written to both the Scottish government and the UK government to ask them for their opinions and what actions are available to them uh as if these if this s is passed i think we'll have to consider those letters carefully as a committee at a later day but the Scottish government is consenting to what the UK government is doing here so it's difficult for us to do more than what is uh in those letters within the time frame so i think that's the quandary we find ourselves in and i think the committee just has to understand that we will look at those letters carefully both from the UK and the Scottish government when they come back and if we want to make recommendations we can do but in the meantime i fear we have little or no option but to agree to the s i um i don't know do it um so i would have to move to a substantive question um and that is is the committee content that the provision set out in the notification should be made to the proposed UK statutory instrument i think we are going to have to do that thank you so we'll write to the Scottish government that effect uh the next item of business is consideration of a negative instrument the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme amendment order 2023 the instrument is a little unusual in that it is a UK instrument and it is laid in all the constituent legislative legislatures of the UK united kingdom once laid it is for procedural purposes treated here in the Scottish parliament as if it were a negative for the uh negative statutory instrument this means that its provisions will come into force unless the parliament agrees to a motion to annul them no motions to annul them have been laid and the delegated powers and law reform committee have no uh comments or observations on the instrument does uh any member have any comments on the on the instrument if you don't i'd invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to this instrument are we agreed we are agreed and that concludes our public meeting and we'll now go into private session