 I welcome everyone to the 30th meeting in 2018 of the Delegated Powers and the Law Reform Committee. Before we move on to the main items of business as one piece, a business that committee must decide first, and that is a decision on taking business in private. The first item of business today is to propose that we take items 6 to 10 in private. These are consideration of the evidence that we are hopefully about to hear on the Transport Scotland bill, the Delegated Powers provisions in various bills and our future work programme. Does the committee agree to take these in private? Item 2 is slightly delayed, so we will move on to item 3, consideration of instrument subject 2, affirmative procedure. No points have been raised on the draft assigned colleges university of the Highlands and Islands Order 2018, the draft budget Scotland Act 2018, amendment regulations 2018 and the draft first tier tribunal for Scotland social security chamber and upper tribunal for Scotland composition regulations 2018. Is the committee content with these instruments? Does the committee wish to welcome the Scottish Government's prompt action in withdrawing and relaying the first tier tribunal instrument in response to our recommendations on 2 October? Agenda item 4 is consideration of instrument subject to negative procedure, and no points have been raised on SSIs 2018 292 293 and 300. Is the committee content with these? Agenda item 5, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and no points have been raised on SSIs 2018 298. Is the committee content with this instrument? I'll suspend the meeting briefly. Welcome back. We'll jump back to agenda item 2 now, which is consideration of the delegated powers provisions in the Transport Scotland bill, and I welcome Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. Welcome. He's accompanied by Brendan Rooney, the bill team manager, Cat Cwayne Roadworks policy adviser and Kevin Gibson, a solicitor for the Scottish Government. Welcome to you all. Do you have an opening statement, minister? I do, I have, convener, which may be helpful to the committee in considering these matters. The Transport Bill is a wide piece of legislation and takes forward a suite of measures to improve journeys for the travelling public across Scotland. It also makes some necessary technical improvements to quite specific areas, ensuring more appropriate financial flexibility and governance arrangements for some public bodies. The bill covers bus services, low-emissions zones, prohibitions on pavements and double parking, smart ticketing, roadworks and regional transport partnerships and canals. In framing the provisions within the bill, the Government has been acutely mindful of striking an appropriate balance between the use of primary legislation and the use of delegated powers. The delegated powers are considered appropriate in a number of places in this bill, mostly due to the complex and technical nature of the issues being dealt with. A level of technical detail will be required in regulations, which are simply not appropriate for primary legislation. The bill also deals with issues in relation to which experience of practical operations or advancing technology will affect how the law should operate. Flexibility is therefore also a key driver for our approach in a number of places. I would like to highlight that in many areas where regulations are being proposed, extensive stakeholder engagement is already taking place. The bill aims to take a collaborative approach to developing the detail and to ensure that secondary legislation is robust and informed by those that it will affect. The Government does not want to pre-empt that process or to stifle the chances of interested third parties to help to shape the measures. That is why the proposals before the committee have been framed in the way they have. Even where the Government has decided that policy objectives are most appropriately met through the use of delegated powers, we want to ensure that Parliament has the necessary detail within the bill supporting documents as well as evidence from an engagement with the Government to give informed and constructive scrutiny. Transport Scotland officials have given evidence to the lead rural economy and connectivity committee. The outline that the Government will endeavour to share its thinking on secondary legislation with Parliament as the bill progresses. I want to reiterate that to this committee this morning. I am aware that the committee wrote to Transport Scotland with specific questions on a number of proposed delegated powers and received a detailed response. I hope that that proved helpful in your consideration. I am keen to hear further from members today to see where I can build on that or work with the committee to address any on-going concerns that it may have. However, the Government is clear that the approach to subordinate legislation in the Transport Scotland Bill should be seen in the context of the breadth and complexity of the subject matter at hand. I am happy to answer any questions from the committee. On those delegated powers, the bill has more than 60 of them. That is quite a high number. We do not often see that number. I think that the last time I recall was the planning bill and we had plenty to say on that. Can you perhaps tell us why it is necessary to delegate that number of powers? I do recognise that it does appear to be a high number. It is a reflection of the significant range of areas that the bill is seeking to address. There are seven different areas and around 70 different sections to the bill. That reflects the complexity of the bill. In a number of those areas, there are technical elements that still have to be taken forward in order to ensure that the bill, once it is completed its parliamentary course, is able to be effectively implemented. The most effective way for us to do that is through the delegated powers. I think that the numbers are not reflective in us. Seeking to just take more delegated powers is because of the breadth and the complexity of the bill and the different areas that are contained within it that reflect the need for a greater level of delegated powers. That would normally be the case for a bill. The bill makes provision for a number of new criminal offences to be created. I am sure that, as a form of justice minister, you will agree that creating offences that criminalise individuals is a very serious and significant step. Why are those not in primary legislation? The principal reason for that is that the criminal offences relate to enforcement matters. That relates to, for example, in low-emission zones. For the enforcement of low-emission zones, it is slightly that number plate recognition systems would be used for that purpose. There are other technologies that could be used as well. However, the choice of what type of enforcement regime is taken forward by a local authority implementing a low-emission zone has not been finalised yet. Until that is finalised, it is difficult for us to then put in place the exact criminal offences that would apply should someone tried to circumvent or to compromise that enforcement arrangement. If it was using registration number recognition cameras, if they were to try to cover up their number plate, that would be a clear criminal offence in trying to circumvent the process, or if they were trying to stop an enforcement officer issuing a ticket for the purpose of, for example, parking in a pavement, that would be a criminal offence. However, until we have finalised the enforcement regime, which will be applied in these different areas, we are not in a position where we can actually make specific criminal offences. The other thing that will come along, which I suspect, having been unjust as previously, is that people will adapt their ways about doing things if they think that they can circumvent the existing enforcement regime. If you have that set in primary legislation and people are circumventing or finding a way in which they can get round it, then you have to go back to primary legislation, clearly to amend that. By doing it through regulation, it allows us to adapt our approach going forward if we are finding out their ways in which individuals are trying to get round the regime in order to make sure that they are not able to do so. In terms of the flexibility, is the flexibility that you want around being up to authorities about how they enforce, or is it flexibility on what the actual punishment might be? The enforcement regime, the flexibility is around what would be a criminal offence if you are trying to compromise the enforcement regime. There is flexibility there for local authorities and the bodies where the provisions are being made for, to be able to look at how they want to take forward enforcement. As I said, through the use of different technologies and how that adapts and changes. What we do not have flexibility around is whether there is limited flexibility around the fixed penalty that would be issued. For example, we have set out in the legislation that the fixed penalty that would be issued is limited to level 5 in terms of a fine through summary proceedings, so there are already limitations on that in terms of what could be issued. However, that is to deal with those who are trying to compromise that enforcement regime, which would be a criminal offence. Until we have finalised what the enforcement regime will be in these different areas, we need to take it forward under regulations. The area is identified by a law of mission zones, parking, prohibition and the written statement of roadworks. Can you speak to each of those areas and advise us on why it is not possible for those to be on the face of the bill with the enforcement regime? When it comes to low-emission zones, it links to the point around the type of mechanism that is going to be used for enforcement purposes. As I mentioned, that could be something like number plate recognition systems that are used for that purpose. If someone is to compromise that, we need to be able to be in a position where we can have a criminal offence for trying to breach that system. However, when taking that forward, it has not been finalised exactly what that enforcement regime will actually be. There is also the potential for technology to change as well, which gives us other options going forward. Taking it forward under regulation allows us to adapt to that change in technology as well. In relation to pavement and double parking, prohibition arrangements relates to aspects around enforcement of that and how local authorities will seek to enforce that. For some, it will be through fixed penalty charges that they will apply. However, the work that we are doing with local authorities and how they want to apply has not been finalised. That is why we want to take it forward on regulation so that we can adapt that as well. There is also the potential for new technology to deal with some of those types of things. The type of technology that is used by local authorities at the present moment for fixed penalties could be changed at some point in the future. We need to be able to adapt the regulations to reflect that as well. What would be in the fixed penalty notice, the types of details that would be in it, etc? Regulations give us that flexibility. In relation to the road works reinstatement quality plans, those are a new provision that has been created. They have never been there before. As it works at the present moment, the commissioner's work has largely undertaken on a mediated basis where they try to mediate agreement around where work has not been completed to the correct standard and finished to the correct standard to get the contractor to carry out further repairs or that it could be the road authority to carry out further repairs. One of the challenges that there has been is to ensure that there is adequate compliance with those things. There has been a view in the sector for some time that there is a need to make sure that the commissioner has the ultimate power to be able to find a contractor or a road authority if they are failing to comply with a notice that they have issued. The offence that has been created is part of a new framework that has been created to deliver those new types of enforcement provisions around the improvements that will be required through the commissioner's office. The backstop measure is that they will ultimately be able to issue a fine or apply for a fine to be applied to a contractor. The framework and how that will operate is new. No more backstops. I knew when I read that, I knew that that was going to probably come up, but hopefully this one won't be as complex as the other backstop issue, Mr Finlay. It's a backstop measure that gives them the power to be able to pursue if it's necessary, but because the framework has not been fully developed with the sector yet and how it will ultimately ramp up to that, our view is that it's best to take that in regulation because we can then deal with that at that particular point. The principle of that is that it's very easy to make the argument that technological change happens quickly and therefore we have to adapt to that and that you could apply that to a whole swath of government policy where technology is going to start to impact on it. It's just a concern that we move towards everything being done through regulation. I fully understand that. Taking powers through regulation is not something that we've undertaken lightly. It is in trying to strike the balance between making sure what can be provided on the face of the bill while at the same time also allowing us to have some flexibility to respond to those changes to help to support local authorities and other partners who are going to be responsible for enforcing them as well and to adapt their approach to that. I understand and recognise the concerns. If the committee has got views on how we can help to address that, those are going to be taken forward through affirmative procedures, but if the committee has got views on how we can improve how Parliament can have scrutiny of those matters, I'm more than happy to consider that going forward with the bill. Is there a danger that we can end up with a bit of a postcode lottery in terms of enforcement? No, because what will happen is that the method that local authorities wish to use in terms of enforcement gives them flexibility. What won't be different is what the penalty would be. There's clear consistency in how that will be applied. The criminal offence is here to do with supporting enforcement regime. If someone is trying to breach the enforcement regime, there are other forms of technology that could be used. There are means by which local authorities could go about enforcement. What we're trying to do is give the flexibility through regulations to be able to adapt to that and to support that and the choices that they make. Obviously, some councils could enforce stricter than others. If you're allowing that flexibility, I'm not saying anything wrong with that, but if you allow that flexibility, then clearly councils will take their own view on how they enforce either low-emission zones or pavement parking. What the criminal offences deal with is breaches of the enforcement arrangements. If one local authority uses a number plate recognition and another local authority chooses to use another mechanism for that purpose, if the person tries to breach that by covering up the number plate or trying to circumvent the system in some way, that's a criminal offence that they'll be committing. Local authorities may take a lot of different approaches on how they want to take forward enforcement, but breaches of that will still be a criminal offence. That's where the regulations give us that flexibility to adapt to that. I know that you'll be aware that the Scottish Government's written response to the committee indicated that it's reasonable to assume that the first emission standard specified in the regulations under section 144A of the bill will be consistent with the leading European emission standards. It also recognised that European standards for petrol and diesel vehicles have largely been accepted by stakeholders who responded to the consultation. We understand that the Government does accept that the emission standards are fundamental to the scope and operation of the low emission zones, but would parliamentary scrutiny be enhanced if the initial emission standard was set out on the face of the bill, with a power take in regulations to amend that? That's one option. The principal reason we've set these out and we want to set these out in regulations is because they are likely to change and could change quite quickly. What we don't want to do is to revert to primary legislation each time in order to amend and recognise that. The direction of travel at the present moment is for diesel is the Euro 6 standard and for petrol is the Euro 4 standard. That's likely to be the approach that will be taken by local authorities in the implementation of low emission zones. However, that hasn't been finalised just as yet and it still has to be finalised by all of the parties that will be taking part in the implementation of low emission zones. That's a part of the reason why we haven't put it on to the face of the bill, but the likelihood is that these standards are going to change and probably change quite rapidly over time and what we need to do is to be able to adapt and to address that through regulations and the regulation making pills gives us the opportunity to do that, while also providing the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I appreciate what you are saying, but can you confirm that the affirmative procedure will apply for any subsequent changes going forward with the emissions under section 1.4A? Is the affirmative procedure that you are using for it? It's negative. It's a negative procedure that we've set for that. If the committee had a view that they felt that that would be better dealt with under the affirmative procedure, I'd be more than happy to give consideration to that and whether the bill should take account of moving to an affirmative procedure. I'd like to give it due consideration and to see whether that would be the most appropriate way in which to do it. If it helps the committee, I'm not unsympathetic to the suggestion, but I'd like to consider all the practical implications of any change that there was to the affirmative procedure. Would it be possible, then, Cabinet Secretary, for you to write to the committee if the bill is not amended in this way at stage 2 and maybe explain your reasons for why you're taking the decisions that you're taking? If it would be helpful, I'd be happy to write to you either way, whether we do it or not, and to advise you on that if that would be your assistance. Okay, thank you. We'll obviously be producing a report and you'll no doubt respond to that. Of course. It's an important line of questioning because, clearly, introducing this could affect a large number of drivers. I think that people need to know what's coming. Even through the negative procedure, there is still a notification process of that, but as I say, I'm more than happy to consider the committee's views on that. Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to another section. That's section 29, which is about bus services. That creates a new power allowing ministers to make further provision about what may constitute a facility or measure. Can you explain to what extent these terms are already defined in the bill and why the power is framed to specify what may constitute a facility or measure? Okay, the provisions in the bill are designed to try to be helpful to local transport authorities in sitting up at bus service improvement partnerships and it allows them to look at how they can use best practice and how we can help to try and take a national approach in addressing these matters. The bus service improvement partnership model doesn't impose a particular obligation on local transport authorities in terms of what facilities or measures must be part of the scheme. Instead, what it seeks to do is to try to assist local transport authorities to choose whether to include particular facilities or measures in the circumstances that it is looking to apply at a bus service improvement partnership. In terms of the technical definition, I'll let officials give you a bit of background to their thinking around these terms, but, by and large, a facility would be something in the form of an infrastructure, so it would be a bus stop or bus lane being provided. Measures may be about providing additional parking facilities, etc., to assist. It's a broader term, but officials can give you a bit of background to their thinking around these terms. What is important to emphasise is that what we are not trying to do is to be prescriptive to LTAs on what measures and facilities should be contained within it. We are trying to be helpful to them and give them an understanding on the issues that they should consider when they are looking at putting a bus service improvement partnership in place. As the cabinet secretary said, the terms are not designed to be particularly prescriptive or particularly restrictive. The improvement partnership will be taken forward at a local level between the local transport authority and bus operators in the area, so there will be certain nuances that will be agreed depending on any individual partnership. What those regulations do is allow for illustrative examples of what kind of things that they might be talking about or agreeing on under the terms, facilities or measures. As Mr Matheson was saying, facilities could be hard infrastructure, such as bus lanes or bus stops. Measures might be traffic management or congestion, taking policies or schemes that help to incentivise buses and perhaps de-incentivise public car use. The regulations that are envisaged will give illustrative examples of those. Again, there is flexibility over time as those partnership arrangements bed in or are taken up across the country to look at how much direction it would be needed within regulations to give the parties involved in those partnerships more of a framework to come to their agreement on it. That is very useful, because I think that most people would not have a clue what the facility or measure was. I guess that it is spelled out somewhere in the paperwork accompanying the bill, is it? There is policy memorand and explanatory notes that accompany the bill giving a sort of layman's version of things. Obviously, when the regulations come forward, they will have the specifics of what underpins those terms. Okay. Speaking of regulations, do you think that cabinet secretary would be more appropriate for the affirmative procedure to be used for those? I think that, given that we are not seeking to be prescriptive, that would feel to me to be a step too far. We are not trying to prescribe exactly what LTA should be applying within a bus service and improvement partnership to try to help to support them in their decision making. In that sense, it feels to me as though affirmative would potentially be a step too far, that negative procedure would seem to be appropriate and proportionate. Thank you. Tom Arthur. Good morning, cabinet secretary. My question concerns section 29 of the bill, which makes provisions for ministers to direct local transport authorities in exercising their powers to make, or a very ticketing scheme. The delegated powers memorandum states that, in issue needs directions, a reason will be clearly set out. However, that is a political commitment that is not on the face of the bill. The committee in correspondence with the Government inquired as to why it would not be set out in the face of the bill that there would be a requirement to provide reasoning. In the Government's reply, it stated that it would be redundant, as under administrative law, the Scottish Government would be required to give a reason and justification. However, the committee's understanding is that under administrative law, there would be no requirement to provide a reason, unless there was specific context such as where a public authority departs from its stated provision. In the planning bill, there is a requirement on the face of the bill to give specific directions. In section 7 of that planning bill, where directions are given to planning authorities to exercise their powers, the cabinet secretary's views are on adding a requirement to the face of the bill to provide reasons for a direction to make a ticketing scheme to put the position beyond any doubt. I think that the member has raised an important issue. It is a matter that I have given some consideration to from the correspondence that we have received from the committee. I believe that, under administrative law, there is a requirement for us to be transparent about issuing a direction. However, I also think that it is an area where we should put it beyond doubt. I think that we should look at amending the bill to reflect that, similar to the provisions that we have in the planning act, to make sure that there is no dubiety around the position and the end of setting out clearly why that direction has been issued. The committee's probing of the issue has been helpful in formulating my thoughts around it. It feels to me that we should put it beyond doubt and make it very clear on the face of the bill that there will be a requirement for ministers to set out the reasoning for that. Despite the fact that I believe that, under administrative law, there is a requirement for us to do that. To some extent, we should just put it on the face of the bill so that there are no questions around the matter. Thank you very much for that answer, cabinet secretary. I am sure that something that my colleagues in the committee will join me in welcoming. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. That is very useful indeed. Thank you. Stuart McMillan. Thank you. Good morning, cabinet secretary. My questions centre around sections 51 to 53 of the bill. These sections confer powers to make regulations about the removal, moving and disposal of motor vehicles parked contrary to parking prohibitions, also such as section 42 in the payment parking. Such regulations will engage the right to proper tender article 1 or protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. You said in your written response that you will consider as the bill progresses whether there should be a requirement on the face of the bill to consult road users before those regulations are actually made. However, given the significance of those powers and that similar UK powers such as the Road Trafficking Regulations Act 1984 contain a consultation requirement, can you, cabinet secretary, confirm that the bill will be amended to include such a requirement? It would be fair to say that regulations in this area are an area in which we would routinely carry out a consultation engagement with a range of different stakeholders on how those provisions would be drafted and how they would be taken forward. I am very open to the committee's views on whether they believe that there is a need for something on the face of the bill to require ministers to undertake such a consultation, because it is a matter for any sort of transport type, traffic type regulation that we would take forward within the Government is that we would routinely have a consultation exercise for those matters, as a matter of course. However, if the committee feels that they would prefer to see something on the face of the bill making that very explicit and clear, then I am happy to give consideration to that. It feels to me as though, given what we would do as a matter of course, having it on the face of the bill puts it beyond any doubt. Obviously, with all the committee, we will take on board what you have just said there, and we will decide in terms of what we want to do if that is something that they want to make further recommendations to you on. On section 42, I know that this is not a delegated powers aspect, but on section 42, in the pavement parking, I chaired the cross-party group on visual impairment. As you be aware, it has been an issue that has been around for some years. Ross Finney, Joe Fitzpatrick, Sandra White and, obviously, it is now yourself in the bill. I know that in discussions, it does come up regularly in the cross-party group. It is very much welcomed that the fact is in the bill, and people are looking forward to that coming into force when the bill does pass. I just wanted to make you aware of that from the cross-party group. Thank you very much. I am very grateful for that comment. I am conscious of the a wide range of stakeholders who are very keen to see the provision enforced and provided within the legislation. It is an issue that I know that the rural economy committee has been giving very close attention to in the evidence-taking so far. I am keen to get as much parliamentary support as we can for the provision in the bill, because it will make a marked improvement for people who are experiencing difficulties due to pavement parking, particularly people with visual impairments. Thank you for that. My next question is about section 67 of the bill. That confers the powers on Scottish ministers to make a code of practice about reinstatement quality plans to be entered into resetting the Scottish roadworks register. It also allows regulations to make further provision about those plans, including the consequences of failing to comply with a code of practice and for offences to be created, for failure to comply with requirements imposed under the regulations. You indicated in your written response that the Scottish Government's view was that the bill did not authorise the regulations to contain provisions making an offence or imposing any other penalty for failing to comply with the code of practice. However, in order to put the position beyond any doubt, would you be willing to make this clearer on the face of the bill? I think that this is quite a complex area. Kate will probably want to give a few things on that, because it is an area where it is completely new, not just here in Scotland in the UK. Part of the reason for doing some of this through regulation making pills is to give us some flexibility to adapt to that as well. It is also a new area for the sector and how it will adapt to that and how it will respond to it, which is again reflective in the way in which we have framed it within the bill. I do not know where Kate wants to explain a wee bit more why we have taken this particular option. The reinstatement call plans are entirely new. We have a code of practice for how reinstatement should be carried out for undertakers, and we have a resultant inspection regime, but we have never previously put anything prior to that. That is bringing the focus back on how things are planned out and hopefully trying to improve things that way. What was the specific question? It is just regarding the written response from the Government. The Government's view was that the bill did not authorise the regulations to contain provisions making an offence or imposing any other penalty for failing to comply with that code of practice. It was really just that in order to clarify that and put it beyond any doubt that it could be considered on the face of the bill. The basic point is that a code of practice by its very nature is an advisory document. Unless we were to specifically allow for the regulations to create an offence or failing to comply with that document and adjust its nature in that way, the powers that they currently stand would not allow us to create the offence. It is by remaining silent on the point that we take the view that you cannot create that mandatory element to the code of practice. I am sure that we could think about whether there is anything to do to make it a bit clearer on the face of the bill, but given that it is the nature of what a code of practice is, it would need something a bit clearer than a general power to create offences in relation to a general power to make regulations about the code of practice. We need to be a bit clearer and more specific than that, to allow us to create an offence in the regulations of failure to comply with the code. If the committee uses on this, if they feel that there is a way in which we could enhance clarity around us in the face of the bill and if there is a way in which we can reasonably achieve that, we will be happy to look at that. I have one more question. It is not a delegated problem. Can I just ask on the code of practice thing? Why did you decide to go down that route rather than something a bit tougher? The way that the quality plans work for them to be effective, they really need to be developed through industry. Industry absolutely has to buy in, otherwise it becomes just a box-ticking exercise. The best way, the most effective way of doing that is through a code of practice that is nationally applied and that applies to everyone who has to provide those things. The code of practice will have to be changed and adapted as time goes by. Because it will be highly technical in terms of, as a document, a code of practice is the most practical way in which to take it forward. Thank you. It is a question regarding the roadworks and what is in the bill. Clearly, if there is an improved dialogue between the undertaker for roadworks and bus operators, then if there was better planning, if there was better dialogue and a longer term planning for those non-essential and non-emergency roadworks that are required, then I do not really see that in the bill and I know that it has been raised with me by bus operators. It certainly is a serious concern and it also ties into comments from Mr Rooney a short time ago when Mr Rooney said that about incentivising bus usage and de-incentivising car usage. If bus operators, if they have to, at the last minute, change bus routes and if there is very little dialogue with them, then there is no incentive for people to go and use buses and get out of their cars. I think that you raised an important issue around the impact that roadworks can have on the quality of bus services that has been provided. I know that it is an issue that the bus industry is concerned about. It is significant that roadworks are starting without them being notified and then it can have an impact on their journey times and having to take diversions. Passengers have not been aware of that as well. There is a role for the LTAs in those matters. I will say a bit more about some of the work that has been going on to try to address some of those issues and to get greater co-ordination around those issues, but it is an issue that has been raised with me by the bus sector as well. It is not related to powers, but we have a really good system in Scotland. We have a national roadwork register that the advanced notification of planned works has to go into. One of the things that the bill does is make the timescales that that information has to go into much shorter so that everyone can have it. The information ports over to a public-facing website, so that any bus company, supermarket or any member of the public has access to that information when those roads are going to be closed, contact details of who to speak to, about diversionary routes and so on. By tightening that, it makes it better for everyone, including bus companies. The other thing is about emergency works and things. Other parts of the bill tighten the commissioner's inspection—it gives him the inspection function, but he does not have one at the moment—it gives him better powers to investigate those things. If there is a genuine gas escape or a water leak, that could be notified as emergency. If it is perhaps not genuine, there will be additional powers for the commissioner to be able to investigate that and address it. I know that it has been raised with me that that short notice is certainly for non-emergency works and the confusion that it causes and the hassle that it causes not only to operate but certainly to bus users. I will examine further what is in the bill and continue the dialogue that I have with bus operators in my constituency. However, I know that the fact that it is still being raised by the industry, clearly there are still some concerns there that it could be tightened a bit further. Is there any roadworks that will take more than 10 days or will involve road closure and need to be notified three months in advance? That information should be in the public domain for at least—there will be occasions where, for co-ordination purposes, that timescale has to be shortened, but the norm is that that type of information should be in the public domain three months before the works happen. With the website now the way it is, historically that was not available, but with the public-facing website, if you know what your bus routes are, you know where your own house is, what is going to affect your own commute, you can look in this and see what is happening. Obviously, if it is something that is planned much shorter, if there is an emergency pothole or whatever, you cannot have those long timescales. However, for planned works, the ones that take over 10 days or have road closures, it should be there three months in advance. Just on a wider point, tomorrow evening in my region I have a public meeting about busses, because of the withdrawal of a whole swath of services. What is there in what is being proposed that I can tell the people tomorrow night that things will change? Bus companies have withdrawn services. The public have had very little say on that, and they have no power to change that. What hope can you give to people? Some of the provisions within the bill give the powers for LTAs to have bus service improvement partnerships put in place, working with bus service providers, which can look at specific routes. It gives local authorities as well as LTAs the opportunity to look at franchises in place. It also gives them the power that, in certain circumstances, they wish to deliver a bus service themselves, so that they can then deliver a bus service directly to themselves in an area. It expands a range of options that LTAs have around addressing those types of issues. In some cases, they are working with operators, but also in certain circumstances giving local authorities the powers to be able to deliver bus services within those areas themselves. With the financial, wherewithal to do that? There will always be a financial limitation to those types of matters. There is no additional funding provided for that purpose. It is for local authorities. For example, just now, in my local authority area, there are certain routes that they choose to subsidise because they see them as essential services. They work with bus operators to maintain services to some of those communities, because otherwise they would not be commercially viable. It could be in the future that, as a local authority, they choose not to provide that subsidy but instead choose to use that resource for the delivery of bus services directly themselves if they choose to do so. They have the option in which to choose to do that, but that gives them a greater range of options than they have available to them at the present moment. OK. Any other questions from members? No? Thank you Cabinet Secretary for your time this morning and your officials, and I'll move the meeting into private session.