 Ddiolch i gael ddechrau i ddim yn 2018. Rwy'n fwy bod bod nhw'n f которую eu mesurau sy'n fitn ailladau yn fgun. Rydyn nhw efallai ymddianneud ad pagesenol. Dw i'r ymddiannol yma yn y tiwg yma, ac mae'r fyddiad o'r ddweud yn sefyd ac yn Ffraik. Rydyn nhw efallai'r ymddianneud hefyd mewn P4 yn Ffraik, a ittwch eich gwbl. Mae'r gynnwyson sylweddau yn y Gymdeithasol o'r F¡CRLUM ystod yma ar y peth. ernas humansaidd? Rwy'n golyb d'na gweithio i item 2, derbyn rhain Deaf Scotland. Rydyn oedd gwybod i'w fawr i ni i ddechrau'r cyd-dau gan defnyddio volunteeredu ymddangos ar y Ddechreu. Rwy'n digwydd i ddechrau'r cyd-dau gyda ddechreu a ddechrau ddechrau rwyaf oedd o'r Ffuture UK. Rydyn i gwerthoedd gwybod i ddechreu'r cyd-dau? Mae'r ysbyty'r cwmp不知道u o'r trwm yng nghymru yn y Cwmysol Scoltenol, ac yn adeiladog ddoeithio ddim yn cyfreithio'r cyfrindigol dros y cyfrindigol i'r cyfrindigol i'r cyfrindigol yn y cyfrindigol i'r cyfrindigol i'r cyfrindigol yn y cyfrindigol. Mae'r ysbyty'r cwmysol seithio ynghyd yn disbytych fod yn gweithio'r llunnerau dyma'r trefrindigol yn y Cwmysol Cymru. First Part will cover buses and smart ticketing, Part 2 will cover low-emission zones and parking, and Part 3 will cover roadworks, canals and regional transport partnerships. There will be a changeover of officials during each session, but I would like to start off by welcoming Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. I think that this is the first time that you have been in front of the committee, and I think that for the first session that I've got this right, you've got Pete Grant, a bus policy team leader, Gordon Hanning, head of integrated ticketing unit, Kevin Gibson and Debbie Bear, both solicitors. Cabinet Secretary, you have been given, I think, a generous three minutes, but no more than four, to make an opening statement on the bill before we have any questions. It's a pleasure to be here to meet with the committee this morning. I'm aware that the committee has heard from a broad range of voices and viewpoints on the transport bill over the past few months. It's a testament to the detailed approach that the committee has taken over stage one that such a wide spectrum of evidence has been heard from across civic society. I would like to commend the committee for that diligent approach. It has complemented the significant consultation and engagement that the Government has done on those matters. I'm glad to be here to be able to set out my perspective to inform your considerations. You'll be aware that this is a wide-ranging piece of legislation taking forward a suite of measures to improve journeys for the travelling public across Scotland. Those range from measures to improve bus patternage, including smart ticketing, to improve air quality in our cities, increase safety and efficiency of roadworks and addressing parking issues. It also makes some necessary technical improvements to quite specific areas, for example, ensuring more appropriate financial flexibility in governance arrangements for some public bodies. In developing the bill, a collaborative approach has been taken so that its measures are informed by those that they will affect. This engagement has continued throughout the scrutiny of the bill and will continue as the regulations develop. While matters such as low-emission zones and improved framework for bus services and prohibitions on irresponsible parking will benefit many, the bill will also and should not be seen in isolation. Successful transport planning and provision requires a series of interconnected measures and approaches. The bill represents specific areas that have been identified as requiring primary legislation. However, there is a host of work going on across my portfolio to drive improvement, not least the current review of the national transport strategy. This wide-ranging strategy has seen extensive and sustained engagement with stakeholders and citizens across Scotland. It is forward-looking, planning our next set of shared priorities with a draft strategy due for consultation in 2019. We anticipate that the national transport strategy would set the context for any future consideration of legislative measures beyond the current measures proposed in the bill. On the bill, as well as the face-to-face evidence from Scottish Government officials and the various interested parties that you have heard evidence from in your sessions, I am aware that the committee has received around 90 responses to its call for evidence. A spice briefing from parliamentary analysts shows broad support. I am sure that this will give you a flavour of the breadth and complexity of the provisions within the bill, mirrored in the varied views of those provisions. I am also aware that the committee wrote to the Scottish Government with specific questions on a number of areas and received a detailed response. I hope that that has proved helpful in your considerations. I am keen to hear further from members today to see where I can build on that. I understand that, as you said, convener, that these will be taken on a thematic basis and it will be starting with the provisions relating to bus services and smart ticketing. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The first question is from John Finnie-John. Good morning, cabinet secretary. You described the bill as wide-ranging, and that is certainly correct, but you will be aware from the evidence that people believe it lacks ambition and are aware with all to address the decline in bus patternage, which is significantly caused by issues such as congestion, which immediately impacts on journey times and liability. What would you have to say about that, please? I think that the bill takes forward a range of provisions that are about helping to support bus service provision across the country. It is, though, worth reflecting the fact that bus patternage has been in decline since the 1960s in some parts of the country. It has accelerated more than others, and there is a whole variety of reasons as to why that is the case. We do not want to stand back and allow passenger levels to continue to decline without taking proactive measures that can help to encourage people to make use of the bus. That is why, in the provisions in the bill, we have taken forward a range of measures that, I believe, will help to support local authorities and bus operators in delivering more effective bus services in their respective areas. The provisions around the bus service improvement partnerships and the provisions for low-emission zones combine with smart ticketing, all of which can help to support and encourage people to make use of buses. If I can just take one example of how the legislation can help specifically in this area. If you look at the average speed of a bus going through somewhere like Glasgow at city centre, I am told that it is something in the region of three miles per hour. If that could be increased to six miles per hour, then the journey time would shorten considerably for people. It would be more efficient and people would have more reliability in the services. The provision of low-emission zones provides an opportunity to take forward measures that help to improve things such as journey times and reliability measures that can help to encourage people to make greater use of the bus. I do not accept that the bill lacks ambition. It takes forward a range of what I would consider to be pragmatic measures that can help to improve patronage levels. I also help to address some of the issues that local authorities highlighted to us that they wanted to have action taken on to try to address the issues around bus use. However, you did not mention congestion, which was consistently told as a factor that affects reliability and impacts in other ways. Is that a lost opportunity? Is that something you would look at to putting it at a future date or are you supportive of putting it at a future date? The bill is to take forward a range of measures that are present time. There may be further measures that we should take forward at a later date, but I do think that low-emission zones provide the opportunity to address issues around congestion, given the way in which they will operate. I do not think that the bill does not address those issues in itself, but it has measures within it that can help to address issues relating to congestion. One of the things that is different with the way in which the bus service improvement partnership will operate is that it goes beyond just that of looking at infrastructure. Do we provide bus prioritisation in certain areas? It also allows them to look at things such as frequency of service. It looks at fair levels as well. It provides them with a whole range of different provisions and much more flexibility in dealing with those types of issues in a way in which they do not have with the existing Coupier arrangements. I would not say that it does not address the issue of congestion in itself, because I think that low-emission zones can play a part in that. The use of bus service improvement partnerships can also help to address those issues. Do you see it a role for perhaps connecting with the congestion the potential for non-domestic parking levies or workplace levies freeing up space? It is not a provision that is within the bill. It is not something that we have consulted on. If there was an appetite for local authorities to go down that particular route, then I would certainly be willing to engage with them and to discuss that matter. However, it is something that I would consider as being a matter for local authorities to consider taking forward. However, if there is an appetite for that, I am prepared to have that discussion with them, but there are no provisions within the bill to provide that. I would hope that the Scottish Government would have taken a lead in that, but perhaps that can form part of some future discussions. Finally, if I may, convener, you touched on the national transport strategy. Is there another lost opportunity that may yet have an opportunity to correct, cabinet secretary? That relates to the issue of poverty and the impact that public transport has in that. It is hugely significant. Now, it is understand that there is a poverty strategy. What regard should that have to playing its part? Every piece of legislation should try to interweave with others to improve. Would you be open to looking at that, the impact that that could have in addressing issues of poverty, which are significant particularly, not just in urban areas but rural areas too? Do you mean specifically issues within the bill or within the national transport strategy? The link across all three. Can I say yes? I would hope that, when we publish the draft of the national transport strategy, that should be apparent. I am conscious of the need to make sure that public transport provision is something that is accessible to people who are in lower incomes. I am also very clear about the need to make sure that some of the advances and changes that are going to happen in transport in the next five to ten years are not advances that exclude people from lower income backgrounds. I want to make sure that we have a very clear focus on that. Felly, recently, I was highlighting to a number of policy officials at a conference that they need to make sure that, with the advent of ever-increasing access to electric vehicles and other active travel options, we are making sure that those do not become middle-class pastimes. They are accessible to those in better incomes, but they exclude people from lower income backgrounds to make sure that we are very targeted in ensuring that we are reaching into our hard-to-get-act communities so that they benefit from those provisions going forward. I am very clear about that being a core strand that will be running through the new national transport strategy when we publish it. Some very long and detailed answers there, cabinet secretary. I think that we are on question 1, and we have seven minutes to do that. We may be here till tea time anyway at that rate, so concise answers are always appreciated. Stuart wants to come in, and then we are going to move to Colin. Just picking up the traffic congestion and cabinet secretary, you referred to bus prioritisation. We already have that in bus lanes, but the enforcement of that appears to be pretty variable. The hours over which they operate are very different in different parts, which is very confusing for drivers who cannot read the six lines on a post at the side of the road. Is there an opportunity in this legislation or otherwise to try and crank up the enforcement and standardise the way they work? Enforcement provision in terms of where it has been decriminalised is a matter for the relevant local authorities. It is important that they are taking appropriate enforcement measures to deal with any breaches of those matters. I believe that, with the introduction of low emissions zones, there is an opportunity for local authorities to look at how they can change their enforcement measures to be more effective and to drive cultural change around those matters in a way that might not have been there in the past. I think that there is an opportunity to look at the whole issue of enforcement afresh and how local authorities do that within their own respective areas. However, I am also conscious that there at times can be an inconsistent approach on how different rules are applied. One of the things that I am keen to ensure that we do with the low emissions zones is that we have a consistent approach to the standards that will apply across different local authorities. I believe that the introduction of low emissions zones can help to give a greater consistent result. Indeed, we will come back in some depth to low emissions zones. Thank you for pointing that out. Colin, you are the next question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Can you explain why you have chosen to limit local authorities to providing bus services only where there is an unmet need in no private competition, rather than allowing other local authorities to follow the municipal bus company model that we have here in Lothians? Yes, principally because from the consultation and engagement that we had with local authorities in drafting the bill, the primary focus was to look at trying to identify means by which we could deal with issues where there was unmet need. That is why the bill has been drafted in such a way as to provide them with the additional scope to look at either providing services themselves, to look at franchising as an option to address areas where there is unmet need. It has been drafted very specifically to give them the ability to address an issue that they highlighted that they felt the needed powers to address. Since then, possibly with the exception of the private bus operators, all the evidence that the committee has received, including pretty much unanimously from local authorities, is that the provision around unmet need does not go far enough. They would like to see that removed in the power to actually fully run bus services in their area. Given the evidence committee has given the clear evidence, I am sure that the Government has since the bill was published, will you consider dropping that provision around unmet need and allowing local authorities to run bus companies? It would not be so much about dropping it, it might be about adding to it, so my mind is not closed to the possibility of extending it further beyond the provisions that we have in the bill at the present moment to allow local authorities or local transport authorities to look at the provision of services. I am aware of the evidence that the committee has received from some local authorities in this matter, and my mind is open to the possibility of extending the provisions within the bill to give them greater scope to look at running bus services in their own areas. One of the other things that I have come across in the evidence to the committee is around, mainly local authorities and others, concerns about the process for development and approving local service franchises. The suggestion has been made that they present a significant barrier to the use of the power. Are you satisfied that the processes are streamlined enough and they will be fully utilised by local authorities and bus companies? Yes, I am. We should not underestimate the decision for a local authority or a local transport authority to intervene into the bus market through the use of a franchise. That is a very significant intervention. It is important that, when an LTA or a local authority chooses to go down that particular route, there is a clear process that they have gone through in assessing whether, one, it is necessary, two, what is the evidence to justify the provision of a service through a franchise or through a service on their own, particularly through a franchise, and to understand the impact that that will actually have. The process that has been put in place is to help to ensure that that is the case. The independent panel element that we have introduced is to make sure that there is an independent decision around this matter and to check that the local authority has gone through that process thoroughly and in a detailed fashion. It then allows the panel to make its own recommendation matter. I am confident that it is the right balance, but it is not about trying to stop them from doing it, it is about making sure that there is a robust mechanism in place in conducting the assessment to determine whether that is the right intervention that it should take forward. Do you think that it goes far enough that it is not a case of bills? Possibly a missed opportunity to follow the type of regulation that has, for example, in transport for London, where they really do regulate those bus services. Is that not a missed opportunity? Isn't that the type of power that we should be given to transport agencies and local authorities to really regulate those services? Do you give individual LTAs and local authorities the ability to regulate bus services in their own respective areas? Yes, absolutely. I think that the challenges in trying to do that, given the nature of the deregulated system that we have at the present moment, would be very significant. I think that many local authorities would have real difficulties in being able to manage that effectively. I do not think that that is the appropriate provision that should be within the bill, and that is why there is not such a provision within the bill. Peter, you want to come in. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Surely one of the main reasons that there are unmet needs for bus services is because those services have proved to be unprofitable and there is no private company would run them because they would lose money on them, but yet you are expecting local authorities to pick up some of these routes. There might be a need, but if it is going to be an unprofitable route forever in a day, how does the local authority fund that? We will do some of that just now at the present time. We spend over £50 million a year from funding that we get through the Scottish Government for meeting what is class has been socially required transport services, because those are communities that, if they did not have access to public transport in the form of a bus service, they would not have any public transport provision. I have not my own constituency when the local authority chooses to subsidise particular bus routes because they know that they are not commercially viable but they know that they are socially necessary as well. That will continue to be the case, particularly in our rural communities, where it may be the only link for those who do not have access to a car around other forms of transport. In local authorities, using the new mechanisms that we are having with through the bus service improvement partnerships helps to create a system that is much more focused on working in partnership with the local authority, the LTA and the bus service operators to make sure that they get that balance right. I accept that there are subsidies available, but it is like everything else, it is a limited port. I can imagine routes in North East Aberdeenshire that would be absolutely welcome, but the Aberdeenshire council cannot fund them. Is your view that there should not be any socially required bus services supported by local authorities? Absolutely not. My point is that the money estate local authorities have had cuts to their budgets over the years and money estate. There are bus routes that have ceased to be run by the local authorities simply because they cannot afford to carry on doing it. My point is exactly the opposite. There needs to be more money possibly for that. If the UK Government keeps cutting our budget, there is only so much more that we can pass on, Mr Chapman, which is an impact on local authority budgets. As you correctly say, there is a limited port. We try our very best to support local authorities where we can, but I certainly would not be of the view that we should start simply writing off socially required bus services, particularly in our rural communities. I know that some of our local authorities work very hard to try and help to sustain those services where they can. I will bring Maureen in now, and then I will bring Jamie in afterwards. Thank you, convener. Morning, cabinet secretary. I welcome you to your post morning panel. Following on from what has been said about a number of local authorities, giving us evidence has said that they are unlikely to use those powers because of financial constraints and wondering where the moneys come. We have had a letter just this week from SPT on that particular issue. However, there are in a number of areas, including in the north-east of Scotland, community bus transport. You may recall that the Scottish Government has helped with community—it had a fund at one point—to help community groups to buy buses for community transport use. How do you see existing community transport and perhaps future community transport feeding into all the more bus routes that are not commercially viable but are needed in communities? There is not a specific provision within the bill as such for community transport that you refer to. One of the purposes behind bus service improvement partnerships is for local authorities to look at what is necessary in that particular area to try to improve bus services and to work with the bus service providers. That may also include looking at what is available in the form of community transport in that area to look at how they can help to improve the delivery of bus services. It is very much a partnership between the bus operators and the local authority on how they should operate, which is different from how the existing system operates by and large. When they are carrying out that assessment and looking to put a plan in place, I would expect them to also be looking at what community transport is available in that area to decide on how that plan should be developed and then consulted on within the local community. Although there is not a specific provision around community transport, I believe that bus service improvement partnerships provide a framework that allows the provisions around community transport to be taken into account when bus service improvement partnerships are being considered for an individual area. If necessary, will you amend the bill to make sure that community transport groups are not excluded or forgotten about? I do not know if the bill needs to be amended in that sense, because when you undertake a bus service improvement partnership, there is a plan that should be developed by the LTA or the local authority. That is informed by making an assessment of bus patternage services, etc., which are in that area. That would include looking at what there is in the way of community transport that is available as well, to then develop a plan that can help to address the unmet need that they actually have or whether they want to see improvements in the service. Community transport provision would be considered in that process as part of the planning and assessment process that an LTA or a local authority would undertake at that particular point. However, I am more than happy to take away the thought of whether there is a means by whether it is within the bill or whether it is in the secondary legislation or the regulations to make it quite explicit that when they are carrying out that assessment, they should be looking at community transport as well. Jamie, you want to come in and then Richard Lyle. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Good morning, panel. Surely the reason that bus patternage is declining, just falling on from John Finnie's opening question, is that if the bus does not go from where you are to where you need to be at the times that you wish to use it and at the frequency that you wish to use it, unless you make substantive changes to the operation of how these services run, then there will really be no huge difference. I appreciate the things around the LEZs that may decrease traffic levels in cities, which may make journey times faster. I appreciate their issues in the bill around smart ticketing, which may make it easier, but it may not, and changes to the franchise model for local authorities, which may or may not mean some of them may run services. However, I cannot say any tangible or direct things in the legislation that says to me of any confidence that, as a result of it, we will see bus patternage increase or at least stop declining. Could you give me some examples? I think that it would be wrong to suggest that the journey times are so the reason as to why bus patternages have been declining. Bus patternages have been declining since the 1960s for a whole variety of reasons. If you look at, for example, places like in Glasgow, West Central Scotland, it has been much more marked. Evidence suggests that that is because car ownership has increased during that time. We have saw bus patternages declining to town centres on the basis that the way in which people are using town centres has changed particularly in recent years with online retail, which has had an impact on our town centres in a variety of different ways, including bus patternage levels. There is a whole variety of different reasons as to what can impact on bus patternage. There is no doubt to me, that one of the things that we should do is to look at whether there are measures that we can take that help to improve reliability around journey times for people who are making use of the bus. I think that your point about whether the bus doesn't go at that time and it doesn't get to the right place or the place that you want to go to at that time can have an impact, but I don't think that it's the only reason. It's much more complex than that. If there are things that we can do to help to improve or to create more reliable journey times, then it may be a more attractive option to individuals. For example, the use of LEZs, in terms of controlling particularly in our town centres, the vehicles that are able to enter those areas allows us to address, in part, some of the congestion issues but can also help to address issues relating to journey times that bus services have because it reduces congestion, which allows them to be able to give a shorter journey time but also a more reliable journey time for people to make use of it. If that is then used in partnership alongside a bus service improvement plan, which goes much wider than the quality partnerships that we have at the present moment, it's much more flexible. It involves consultation as well, but it's much more focused on looking at a range of different things that can be done, not just infrastructure, bus prioritisation but also the frequency of service, the fares of services as well. It gives local authorities much more scope to take forward practical measures, both from a policy and from an infrastructure point of view that can help to improve journey times and reliability of them. It's not that there is one thing that we can do, but there is a combination of different things that I believe can help to address these matters. That is to try to help to address some of those patronage issues that the bus industry has been facing over a considerable number of years now. I'm going to get into trouble with the rest of the committee if I cut them out of asking their questions because you're giving long answers, and I would ask you please to keep the answers short as possible so that I don't lose the rest of the committee. I've got Richard Labw waiting, Stuart Stevenson, and I've got a question and then we've got a If I could ask you to keep a focused answer, rather like short journey times on buses, everyone enjoys them, to get to the destination quicker Cabinet Secretary. Okay, I'll try my best, but I hope that, for Mr Gean, that gives him an insight into the use of several elements within the bill that can help to address the very issue that he has a concern about. I'm going to bring Richard Lylean and then Stuart Stevenson. Richard, a short question. I'm just going to ask for a yes or no answer. Some say patronage is falling because you can't get a bus and you can't rely on the bus to get in the bus. Some say that we're only tinkering with bus transport, so what do you say to taking buses back under public control, say an area at a time, over a period of years? Yes or no? To take public transport back out under public control or bus transport back under public control. So the provisions within the bill give scope for local authorities to take forward measures on their areas if they see there's an issue of unmet needs? Only if the operators allow them to do so. And what I've said earlier on is that if there is a view, as you've heard from some local authorities, that they wish to have greater powers to be able to look at around their own bus services, then I'm open to looking at the bill so as to do that. Will we make money available to local authorities which are done on a block grant basis for them to then decide on how they allocate that resource to different areas? So it's neither a yes or a no? Okay. Thank you. We're definitely parking that one there. Stuart, it's you now. Thank you very much. Now we've had some preliminary discussion about bus services improvement partnerships. Looking at the construction of the bill, we've got pages 12 to 29, 18 pages that cover the issue. They replace 18 pages in the 2001 act, which covered statutory bus partnerships and voluntary bus partnerships. The explanatory notes from pages 15 to 24 purport to explain the difference between the 2001 act and what it's now proposed. I confess, cabinet secretary, and I've read it several times, I can find no material difference. Can you give me three sentences that identify the material differences, and if the answer is as long as the provision in the bill, perhaps a written answer might be preferable? Would that be fine, convener? Absolutely. So it may be the R as long as the provision is within the bill, so it may be helpful then, convener, if I do write to the committee and set out in more detail, if that would be helpful to the member. The differences between the previous provisions and the new ones is what I'm looking for. There are a couple of very specific measures that are available within bus service improvement partnerships that are not available within QPs. To the next section. The committee has been out and carried out various visits, and we went to the Glasgow and looked at the SPT and the way buses were there, which was incredibly useful. One of the reasons we were given for the decline in buses was the fact that of journey times. You've constantly quoted during this morning's session that LEZs will reduce journey times. The evidence that we had at that committee meeting about what was going to reduce journey times was bus lanes and the use of restricted parking and use-long streets to allow buses to move freely and on time. Do you believe that bus lanes would actually help more than LEZs, or do you just think that bus lanes are not as important as LEZs when it comes to keeping buses moving? No, I think that both can help. So, where are we doing more bus lanes and within the legislation? The provisions within the bill are for creating legal provisions for LEZs. Local authorities can implement the introduction of bus lanes at the present moment if they choose to do so. The issue that we heard—maybe we'll just leave it when I've said this comment—is that local councillors sometimes reject putting in bus lanes in because it is difficult in their wards to get those bus lanes past the residents, but in the bigger scheme of things it's beneficial to the movement of the buses. Stewart is going to make some questions on the next issues. Thank you very much. I want to talk a wee bit about smart cards. The current landscape is quite complex. I actually have a special wallet to hold all my travel-related cards, separate from my main wallet, which I have to keep—I've got my itso standard card for bus and my itso standard card for rail. I've got my senior rail card that's dumb—there's nothing technology—and then, of course, I've got a payment card so I can pay for things. Should you be pleased that he's lost one card? It's since the last evidence session, but Stewart—indeed, I'd like to lose three more, convener, and get down to one card. The itso standard is already widely used. Is that the way forward? Without getting I could readily do this, but I think that it wouldn't be useful to get too much into the technology. Just let me ask the second part, which is really related to it, which is the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Committee. Is that the way that we're going to get to a destination and how does the bill help us to actually do that and get to the comparatively simple environment for the customer that we have in London? The challenge that we have in Scotland is that we have such a wide range of transport service providers, which then creates challenges around how we can introduce a smart ticketing system, which is also interoperable between different modes of transport and different operators. It's been clearly one of the very significant challenges that we've had today, despite the fact that we actually have some operators who have already got smart ticketing arrangements in place, but they're not necessarily interoperable. The provisions in the bill are to create powers that allow us to specify what those national standards should actually be for any smart ticketing system that has been introduced by a transport provider. That is on the basis of the guidance that is provided by the National Advisory Board, which we're putting in statute, which will be responsible for looking at what should be the technological standards that are set to ensure that any smart ticketing system that has been introduced by an operator is one that is interoperable with other service providers. To advise ministers on that and for us to have the powers, along with local authorities, to be able to mandate that as a requirement for those who are providing services. The key thing is trying to get interoperability between these matters because of the complexity of the range of different organisations that we have that deliver transport provision. In a sense, cabinet secretary, in London, there is simply moving to, if you use the same payment card across the different modes in London, you don't need any special transport cards at all to get the best deal and to get the through ticketing. I understand that it's because transport for London gets all the financial transactions and therefore, before presenting them to the bank, can deal with them and collate them across modes. Are we actually talking to financial providers to see what scope there is for that and making sure that that's the approach? Because until we get that approach, we won't get the kind of benefits that they're more or less moving away from the oyster card because they don't need it anymore in London. We're moving into a position where it sounds like we're a decade later reinventing the oyster card or the scallop card or whatever we might choose to call it. It's not about your right. They are moving away from the oyster card and this is not about creating a new national oyster card. This is about making sure that whichever smart ticketing arrangement a travel provider has in place is that it's interoperable, that you can use it for going from rail to ferry, from ferry to bus so that we have a greater connectivity around these options for individuals. I'll make this the last bit. Given that the integration in London seems to work most effectively by looking at integrating the payments, are the Government and will the committee be talking to payment providers to see what scope there is for something that is similar, if not identical? You are, to some degree, asking me to pre-empt the work of the advisory board. That's exactly the type of area that I would expect the advisory board to be exploring, to look at before they set what the national standards should actually be, what should be the key principles that drive it and what should be the national standards that we then want to set. That then gives us the power to be able to actually make sure that that's been applied across operators or across the country. It's on the agenda. Thank you, convener. Richard, I think that yours is the next question. Cabinet Secretary, I was in London with my family a few months ago, so I went on the tube, I went on a bus, I went on the Emirates zipline, I went on—that was interesting—I was on the Docklands light railway because we stayed in East End and we took a boat. We had smart ticketing and it cost the same—the price was capped, as I say, we were on different things during the whole day. Several respondents such as Getting Glasgow Moving argue that smart ticketing alone is not enough, but there should be daily price caps across all public transport within a city region. It happens in London, as I've already said, enabling by smart ticketing. How would you respond to such a suggestion? Did I not see last week that you gave £1 million to promote this smart ticketing? Am I correct in saying that? I think that I saw that in a paper or Twitter or whatever. I don't know where you've seen it, but I would recall that you're correct. Part of that is to help to support smaller transport providers to be able to invest in the technology that is necessary to support smart ticketing. Smart ticketing isn't the magic answer to all of this in resolving some of the issues, but it's an important element of it. The issue of interoperability, just like you experienced in London, is where we want to get to, where there is greater interoperability between different service providers. There are no provisions in the bill to cap payments to cut our fares. There are provisions in the bus service improvement partnership, which allows local authorities and LTAs when they are looking at introducing these to deal with issues around fares. The issue of interoperability is key to making sure that we get more effective smart ticketing options. Why do the Scottish ministers need a power to direct local authorities to establish a smart ticketing scheme? Say, for example, when you were in London, if one of the operators just decided in a particular air disciple, we were not going to do that, we want to go off and do our own thing, is that we wouldn't be able to get that type of interoperability that they have in some areas. The power is there to make sure that, should there be a situation where there is a service provider or an LA that decides that we are just not going to participate in this, maybe in a city region area like Glasgow, it allows us to be able to give direction on the basis of advice from the advisory board about what that should be to make sure that there is action taken in order to introduce a smart ticketing method that is interoperable with the rest of the system. The next question is from Jamie Greene. Before I move on to my question, can I follow on from Richard Law's questions? I think that some local authorities have been watching the session today and perhaps a little bit unclear as to where they stand after this. We've had lots of evidence from local authorities, all with different views, understandably. Some are concerned about the administrative burdens of administering multi-operator ticketing schemes, others are completely opposed to the idea that the Government should have the power to establish those schemes in their authorities and that there are mixed views on it. Is it the case, then, that all that the bill does is give Government the power to ensure that, if such schemes are introduced, they all fall the same standard? Or is it the introduction of the power that means that all local authorities will have to sign up to the scheme? It's just a bit unclear at the moment. The purpose behind the national advisory board is that they will set the national standards so that service providers, when they are purchasing a smart ticketing option, will need to comply with those national standards so that it's interoperable with the other systems. Whether there's a local authority where they don't have one in place, they should be about working with the transport providers to get them to move in that direction. The funding that Richard Lyle made reference to is to help to support those smaller companies that will invest in smart ticketing options to help to deliver their own services. It's not about just imposing it for the sake of it, it's about trying to create the national standards that are necessary once they are set if they are not being addressed by local authorities in a way in which they should be in the delivery of those services. There's a power to be able to mandate them to do that. Okay, so that's clear. There is a power in the bill that means that if local authorities choose not to go down the smart ticketing route in their local areas, you can force them to, is that correct? The principal purpose is not—I would be surprised if there was any local authority in Scotland that doesn't want to have a smart ticketing option. What's more about it is about making sure that the standards that are applied in the smart ticketing option that is operating in the area is one that is interoperable with other areas in the country. Standards are technical things, so standards are what's going on behind the scenes in terms of the technology that's delivering the interoperability that's allowing for the transaction payments and so on. These different, as you say, operators speaking together through some sort of mutual ticketing system, but that's the back end. What I think may be confusing to focus the front end bit in the sense that if you go to, for example, North Ayrshire, they may have one type of scheme, but in Inverclyde there may be others, and many of these services are working across authorities, not every authority is within a transport partnership on a regional level either. I guess that leads into my own question, which is why is the Government choosing to do it this way, in the sense that we're either leaving it up to individual operators to develop their own schemes and some of them are developing ScotRail, Stagecoach, etc. In other cases, we're looking for local authorities to do it. All we're asking them to do is follow a national standard, but they can still implement whatever schemes they wish, and that will be done to various degrees of success or otherwise. Why is Government not taking the lead on this, as other countries have done, where they've said, look, we appreciate it's not going to be easy. There aren't issues around having multiple operators that aren't always talking to each other, but if we really wanted to, we could. There's technology out there, there are other companies that can help Government to do this. Why have you taken this approach that there's no appetite at Government to be a top-down process to rolling out some sort of national scheme? For the very reason we don't want to take a top-down approach to it, we want to take an approach that recognises the progress that some operators have already made in smart ticketing options, but we want to make sure that it's interoperable across different areas. If you go for Mercer and you're going into Glasgow, which is obviously an SPTE area, if you're going across interaer is that it should be a system where if you're going from one boss operator to the next, it's an interoperable system. You should be able to get a through ticket as well. If you're going on to the train, if you're able to get a through ticket, and then if you're getting a ferry, you're able to actually get a through ticket for that purpose. We're trying to make sure that the standards that are applied by any service provider within the country are interoperable. They have a standard that allows people to be able to get that through ticket that they require across different modes of transport in a way that isn't available at the present moment. That's exactly what the national advisory board will be responsible for looking at, is how should that be set out and what should those national standards be. Then it allows operators to decide on whatever system they're going to purchase for that, to provide smart ticketing. They can choose to purchase whatever one they want so long as it meets those national standards and is interoperable with the rest of the country. As it stands at the moment, it seems very unlikely that we'll ever get to the stage in Scotland where you could buy a single ticket or use a single card, an example that Mr Stevenson gave that would allow you access on a bus, a train, a ferry, a tram, because of this disparate nature of transport. That's unlikely to change anytime soon. I suspect that the reality is that, in the years ahead, the requirement for a card will actually disappear anyway because it's increasingly moving to contactless services. The idea of anchoring this on a card, in my view, would be like trying to do the Oyster Card type thing. It's actually in decline. It's about recognising how technology is moving on and the E-PUS approach to things. It's probably going to become contactless in the years ahead and that's why we're trying to create a system that recognises that's where it's going. Technology, in my other question, which I've promised I'd look at this morning, is about making sure that we don't leave anyone behind. I appreciate the issue around contactless. I think that's a point that we haven't made this morning. Yes, that may be the route of travel. Pardon the pun, the cards are less important, but people using their bank cards or mobile phones etc. That doesn't really still provide any through ticketing in the true sense because they may be using that card or using that contactless payment for multiple journeys. There's no real capping of the through price or any joined-up approach to it, so that's just the method of payment as opposed to the method of ticketing. How do we ensure that we don't leave anyone behind? Not everyone is so fair with using Apple Pay or other types of mobile technologies or is used to using contactless. Is there a way that there may be a situation where there is a cashless society in public transport that does leave elderly people behind, for example? How do we ensure that that doesn't happen? One of the things that, again, for the advisory board to consider is the need to make sure that there will always be an element where there is a paper option, so that the person who wants to pay by cash, who wants to be able to get their ticket, is able to do that, that will always have to be an option in any system. I think that that brings us to the end of the questions on buses and smart ticketing. We'll briefly pause. I'd ask everyone to stay in their places unless they're moving, which I think are the people at the other end of the table, so if we briefly pause to allow people to change. Thank you. We'll now move on to the second part of this session, which is on low-emission zones and parking. I'd like to welcome some new members to the panel. Stephen Thompson, head of air quality, George Henry, parking policy manager, Ann Cairns, and Magdalyn Boyd, who are both solicitors. We have a series of questions, and the first question is going to be from Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener. We're on to LEZs now, Governor Secretary. My question is round about the effectiveness of LEZs, because analysis shows that they are fairly limited in what they can do. An EU-sponsored research into the effectiveness of LEZs across northern and central Europe concluded that annual particulate matter concentrations were reduced by between nothing and 7 per cent, with no effects observed in most LEZs. In a similar story for neither at the home in London, so my question is really, are you confident that LEZs will play a significant role in reducing air pollution levels in Scotland? Yes, I do. I do that on the basis of the standards that shall be set for LEZs, particularly for example in Glasgow, which is going to be the first LEZ in the country where the standards will be set for petrol and diesel vehicles. There's a lot of work done around air pollution in over a number of years to address air pollution, to reduce it, but there are still issues about air quality in some of our town centres. My view is that LEZs can help to address some of those issues by the standards that are set around the air commission levels to help to improve air quality in our town centres. Does that mean that you see standards being tighter in Scotland and have been elsewhere in northern Europe, given that they have found very little impact of LEZs across northern Europe? Even in London, where the vast bulk of people obey the rules, but even there, there has been minimal reduced reductions in particular in that matter. The system in London was a different one from the system that is going to operate in Scotland. It's almost like a road charging process that they have in London, as opposed to a penalty charge process that we all actually have. There's a difference in that. It's not about the one thing that will help to improve everything. There's a variety of things that will improve air quality and address it. I think that low emissions zones can actually help to create some of the cultural shift that's necessary to help to address some of those issues. It's part of a wider package of measures that I think that low emissions zones can play an important part in helping to address air pollution, air quality issues and our town centres. The second question that you've really touched on already is the well-proposed in the north of the border that certain classes of vehicle will be banned from entering an LEZ with a penalty imposed for non-compliance. Many other LEZs, for example, in London, require a charge to be paid if the entry criteria are not met, so there is a difference there, as you rightly say. The committee has heard calls for the London approach to be adopted in Scotland, so what is your view on that? The London approach is almost a road-charging approach to it, whereas our view is that it's about preventing vehicles of a certain type going into our town centres, and if they do go in, then they face a fixed penalty as a result of that. It's a different approach to it. Our view is that this is a more effective approach in helping to address issues around vehicles. The pollution levels that come from vehicles and the standards that will be set for those vehicles that are allowed into the zone will be about trying to help to improve air quality in our town centres. It's a more effective measure where we're saying that there are certain vehicles that we don't expect to be in our town centres because of the level of pollution that they cause, rather than having a charging regime that charges them on the basis of the level of pollution that they cause to the area. If the minister and his officials have looked at the experience in Beijing when they more or less banned anything that was polluting, that included industry, so it wasn't just transport for the Olympics. In a single year, they saw a 46 per cent reduction in attendances at hospitals for asthma, and a 23 gram average rise in live birthweights as indicators of the beneficial effects of getting pollutants out of their atmosphere. I just wondered whether, rather than simply looking at European examples of officials and the minister, you are looking at wider examples that might inform policy in this area. I know that officials have looked at a wide range of international experience. I don't know if they looked specifically at the attemptary provision that was put in place in Beijing, it should be said, but I think that your point about how air quality can have an impact on individuals' health should not be underestimated in part of the purpose behind LEZs, is to try to address some of the congestion issues and address a number of our issues around air quality in itself, but also to address the health issues that are associated with it. In my view, LEZs can help to address that. Cabinet Secretary, I would quite like to just ask you a question on buses, if I may. Certainly we have heard evidence during the evidence session that making a bus a Euro 6 compliant from a Euro 5 compliant is difficult but can cost in the region of £20,000. We also heard during the evidence session that if a Euro 5 bus was moving briskly along the route that it should be moving along, the emissions from the bus were no worse than a Euro 6 bus, so there was some evidence to suggest that we should be moving things along routes better, which goes to an earlier question that I asked about keeping things moving in bus lanes. So, do you subscribe to that view or do you think that bus operators are wrong when they are saying that the Euro 6 designation on buses will only have a marginal effect and a better effect would be to keep buses moving in bus lanes quickly along routes? I think that it is a combination of both. Bus engines, which are more efficient and emit less emissions, alongside improving bus journey times to reduce the time when they are sitting around idling, etc., and the impact that that can have on the air pollution. So, I think that it is one or the other. I think that it is a combination of both. So, there will be a huge cost involved to these bus operators because when we are in Glasgow, we saw some buses that were still Euro 4 models. We were explained that it was written on the back of them, so you could identify immediately whether they were 4, 5 or 6. There is a huge amount of buses that will completely be taken out of the loop of use, which may limit bus use in Glasgow even more. Is that the objective? We recognise that there is a cost for bus operators in moving to the Euro 6 standard, which we will set out in further detail with its regulation. That is why we have provided almost £8 million in the bus emissions abatement programme, which helps to support bus service providers to introduce retrofit kits on to their existing non-Euro 6 buses to reduce emissions on them to the Euro 6 level. We are providing funding to help to support them in doing that. You will also be aware that there is a grace period within the provisions for low-emission zones, and that is to help to work with the bus industry around the timeline for them and the transition that they would have for their fleet as well. It gives local authorities the flexibility to work with the industry to try and give them time to carry out the changes that they need to their fleet. The combination of money that we are giving them and the grace period gives them an opportunity to start taking forward those measures. Just a brief question. Is the funding that the Scottish Government is giving to bus companies in Scotland the same as the funding that is being given to bus companies in the UK for the retrofit, or is there a difference? There is a difference to it. I can come back specifically to the committee on that in writing, but there is a difference to the provision that we are making, which makes it more generous than that in England and Wales. I am sure that the bus companies will look forward to hearing that, because that is not what they said in the evidence session, but we look forward to receiving that letter. The next question is from John Mason. Thanks, convener. To build on what the convener has just been asking, but to leave aside the buses, if we think about other vehicles, clearly cars and other vehicles generally are lasting longer than they used to. My own car is nine years old, and especially people from a lower income bracket will not be replacing cars so often and will tend to be using second hand ones. Is there a danger that some of them would be disadvantaged by the LEZ if they can't take their vehicles into the city centre? I'm thinking particularly, you know, maybe somebody who's starting off as a joiner or an electrician or something will have an older vehicle, but it really needs it for his work. Your vehicle is much more modern than mine. Mine is 14 years old, and if you look at the Euro 4 for petrol cars, that would roughly take you to a car that is a 2004 plate, which is 14 years old, which, if you say the same for a Euro 6, which again would be about a 2004 plate. I recognise that there are potential risks there for individuals in lower income. However, I think that that standard gives people an opportunity if they are looking at a car that there's a significant second hand car market in that area that would comply with the Euro 6 or the Euro 4 standards as well. I think that we've got to be alive to that, but I do think that the regulation that they bring forward will help to try to accommodate that potential risk. Right, and you've already mentioned grace periods, which I think are to cover this kind of area. And frankly, we've had conflicting evidence in the committee in that some people think that they're far too long, and we should be much, if we're serious about the air quality, we need to be much more aggressive. And then others have said, no, there's a real cost to this, you've got to give us time, we don't want damage business, so they should be even longer. Could you just explain briefly why you've come to the grace periods that you have come to? So, the grace periods give them, give their local authority the options. So, from a one-year grace period through to a four-year grace period, for non-residential based individuals within the LEZ area to allow them to make the transition that is necessary, whether they go for a two-year grace period, a three-year grace period or a four-year grace period is for the local authority to decide on, based on their own local consultation and introducing the LEZ as well. Of course, there is also a further extended grace period for those who are residents within those particular areas, which goes to six years. It's a six-year grace period that the local authority can go as far as in order to allow them to make the transition that may be necessary as well. So, it's recognising there's time that we need for businesses to allow them to make the transition, but it's a local authority that will decide on what that is and also for local residents that will not be the local authority that will decide on that as well. Okay, thanks. Finally, I've got a heritage bus museum in my constituency, and they're worried that they won't be allowed to drive their old buses around. Is there provision for an exemption to be made for that kind of situation, for a particular day, perhaps? So, there is provision for exemptions, and they'll be dealt with through regulations so that we can adapt them to particular circumstances so that there'll be an opportunity through the consultation for organisations, like the one in your constituency, to highlight the need to provide certain exemptions for particular purposes. Thank you. Sorry, just to clarify that, so I understand it. My understanding that in the legislation is that it was purely for days of importance that are recognised by local authorities for those vehicles to drive around. But if you have an old, as many people do, heritage car that they want to take for a drive, they'll be precluded on a normal day from taking it anywhere near an early Z, is that right? So, we've got a qualifying requirement around it being a significant day. I want to look to see where we extend that. So, for example, I'm conscious that it could be a funeral car that we have to go or a wedding vehicle that requires exemptions for the purposes of it as well. So, I want to look at whether that's framed in a way that gives us the necessary flexibility that's required in certain circumstances. However, I think that the idea of suspending early Zs for particular periods could be linked very much to it would have to be a day of an issue of national importance. It could be a national sporting event that's taking place within the town centre and they want to suspend it for that purpose because of vehicles that we brought in to support that event. However, there are also exemptions around individual vehicles for particular purposes while the early Z is still operating. So, I think that the concern that's been raised to me and you'll know, cabinet secretary, that in my register of interests that I have a farming interest that people coming out, coming in from the countryside to cities will probably be using their agricultural type pick-ups that they won't necessarily change every 10 years. They'll be banned from coming into places such as Glasgow if it's a Euro 6, because anything built prior to 2014 will not be able to get in there. That's a real issue to some people who live in the countryside. Do you think that's right? For the diesel, it would be 2004. 2014. Anything built before 2014 was Euro 5, not Euro 6. They would face a penalty if they were using a vehicle within the early Z area that was over that limit, yes. That's quite hard on a lot of people who probably rely on those vehicles for their normal work process, because they're not going to change them every 10 years. I just ask if it's possible to reflect on that. There's no need to, at this present time, because there will be a consultation in the regulations that will deal with these matters. For those bodies that have an interest in making representations on those issues, they'll be able to engage in the regulation-making process to consider those issues. Cabinet Secretary, I ask for your brief comment on two things. One is displacement, and it concerns around that. Is it the case that businesses, including smaller bus companies, will simply put on all their modern vessels into the LEZs, but then peripheral errors outside of the LEZs will suffer from the uses of older vehicles? Secondly, the cost of upgrading to Euro 6 vehicles for bus companies is going to be quite substantial. First Glasgow said that it would be over £100 million. McGill's have just ordered 26 new buses and so on. Will any of those costs be passed on to passengers, do you think? Deal with the first part of your question. Very often buses that will be coming into LEZs will be coming from suburban areas, so they'll be coming into the town centre and probably passing through it. There will be some that isn't the case, but for many in cities they come in through the town centre and go elsewhere, so they will have to comply in that sense. There is also the possibility, and I wouldn't dispute this, that there's a possibility that they would displace some of the buses that they can no longer use in town centres into using, that have got an LEZ in place to use them elsewhere in moving their fleet. That is possible, but, by and large, most buses that I have used go into the town centre and then go into somewhere else from the town centre. In passing on, the part of the idea behind the grace period and the retrofit abatement programme that we are supporting for the bus industry is to help to support them to meet some of those costs, but also the grace period to try and help to absorb some of the natural turnover that they would have in their fleet in renewing their buses anyway, so that they can upgrade them, but so that they are at the standards when they purchase them. So when I was in Alexander Denys's just last week, there was loading buses were doing that, and I know some of the bus operators are already doing that, so some of them will manage its part of their turnover of their fleet to make sure that they comply with the LEZs. No cost to passengers? Well, we're down to them as a company to decide on how they choose to meet the cost. As you know, bus companies have a programme on how they want to turn over their fleet as well, and they'll manage that in the overall cost base of running their business. Whether it's going to drive up costs purely because they're having to purchase busses for LEZs coming in, I haven't saw any evidence of that. I want to say to you that we've talked a lot about grace periods at the front. Will there not come a time where LEZs will be redundant because we will all have low-emission vehicles instead or electric cars, and there will be, because of climate change legislation, lots more active travel within LEZs in those city centres? Can you foresee a situation, I don't know, 20 years hence, where there will be no need for LEZs? That may be the case, but I think that they've got an important part to play just now in helping to create some of that culture shift and some of that transition. It could be that the next 10, 15, 20 years is that the requirement for LEZs are no longer necessary. The next question is from Peter Chapman. As we understand it, we'll have some flexibility in how they introduce LEZs. So we have heard concerns from fleet operators in particular that different rules applying to different LEZs could make it very confusing for drivers and difficult for fleet operators to plan their routes. So what are the assurance can you offer to such operators that these problems are being thought about and that there's a way forward? I think that you raised an important issue because the objective is obviously by 2020s for our four main cities to actually have LEZs in place, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. What I want to be is in a position where a van that goes from Glasgow to Dundee, if there's LEZs in both, is that that van, if it complies with it in Glasgow, it complies with it in Dundee. So we'll deal with that through regulations so there is a consistency of approach across the country on the standards that are set for LEZs. I know there was some questions about should that not be in the face of the bill. The reason we're putting it in regulations is because it allows us to then change and adapt these as circumstances change so as engines move on etc we can then come with due parliamentary scrutiny but it allows us to flex a change without having to resort to legislative changes such. The point that you make is one that I fully recognise and will be seeking to address that through the regulations. I had planned to ask you a question about the financial memorandum cabinet secretary. It was in part touched on earlier but people talk about the inconvenience, the mechanics of it all, the grace periods, the costs. Thus far no-one's mentioned the number of lives that where deaths are directly attributable to poor air quality. As 40,000 UKs, the figure that's normally used at the Royal College of Physicians and the Conservative estimate for Scotland is 2,500 lives are lost each year directly attributable to air quality. What projection has been done in respect of this legislation about the outstanding benefits of lives that can be saved from this legislation? I can't give you a specific figure on that in terms of how L, E, Z and the number of lives that will potentially save. Is that what you're driving at? Yeah. Yeah. I can't give you a figure for that. Is that not peculiar though? We talk about the minutia of all sorts of things and this is absolutely fundamental. Mr Stevenson touched on that earlier with his comments about respiratory ailments and the temporary period in Beijing where there was an imposition of that. Is that some work that could be done, please? More than happy for us to look at that to see if there is some further information that we could provide on that. However, I don't believe that there's been any specific modelling that's been carried out. Do you want to say? Yeah. I could add a small bit to that. Health Protection Scotland are meeting today to look at the feasibility of looking at the impact of L, E, Z. To determine whether it's feasible to say that L, E, Z has an impact that's measurable to L, E, Z in addition to all the other aspects of air pollution mitigation. That's what Health Protection Scotland is looking at right now. That's reassuring and hopefully the committee can hear back from that. It takes me into my earlier point about the Government policies coming together because surely if in the term preventative spend, which I prefer to think about people or other machines, surely that's an important element of this that should be considered. Any information that you could provide on that would be welcome. I will come back to the committee with some further information on what the Health Protection Scotland is doing around that. John, you also wanted to ask a question on the costs associated with it. Yes, indeed. I felt that it was in part touched on earlier, but there's been criticism shared with the finance committee, cabinet secretary. It is about the financial memorandum and a view that it significantly understated the costs associated with it. What's your response to that? Can you clarify what proportion of those costs that L, E, Z will be met by the Scottish Government and local authorities respectively? The challenge in trying to give a figure as possible is the different ways in which L, E, Z could operate in different local authoritarials. What we've sought to do is use data that we've got from both Edwin Brann and Aberdeen to try to inform the financial memorandum around the potential costs for introducing L, E, Z. My view is that the figures that we've provided are as accurate as we can, but there are some challenges around being able to be as accurate as we would like to be because of the way in which we could operate in Dundee. It will be different from Glasgow and the size and area that it could cover, which makes it more challenging for us to be able to be very specific on what the final cost would actually be. Okay. If I may revert back a little bit there, the number of deaths that the Conservative figure attributed to is 2,500. That's 10 times the number of deaths associated with road traffic accidents. I understand that the Scottish Government would put a figure on the cost of a life killed in a road traffic accident—a seven-figure sum. Again, I think that there's more work that could and should be done in relation to that and the costs on humans, as well as simply infrastructure. I'm happy to take that away and look at that. Certainly on that, the evidence that we heard at the committee of establishing the congestion charge in London was extremely expensive. The only reason that they could then superimpose L, E, Z on top of it is because they'd already paid for the cameras through the congestion charge and there was no way of doing it in Scotland. There was a considerable concern that the costs of establishing L, E, Z had been underestimated. Would it be possible for you to revert back to the committee on the methodology used for that? Yes, I can. Of course, I've been more than happy to provide further information if I can. Mike, yours is the next question. I'm now returning to the issues of pavement parking and the exceptions to parking prohibitions. On section 47, I think that I want to focus on subsection 6. All the other subsections in this, there are 10 that give exemptions nationally and I think that they're very good, but the evidence that we've heard from the committee is focusing on subsection 6. That is, the parking prohibitions do not apply where motor vehicles in the course of business loading and unloading, but the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery collection loading or unloading and any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes. That has caused some problems, because the bill with that subsection gives a national exemption to allow firms deliveries to park on pavements, where at the moment driving and parking on pavements is illegal, but that is actually giving them the permission to do it. The evidence that we've received is that this exemption would be totally unenforcable at this 20-minute exemption. In the bill itself, there's an argument that subsection 6 is not needed because the bill already allows local authorities to exempt such streets from the pavement parking prohibition. In local areas, where local authorities can see that there's a particular problem for deliveries, they can't exempt it under this bill, but what you're doing is putting a national exemption in for this since the wrong signal. At the moment, all the controversy has been about the motivation to free up off pavements to people who are particularly annoyed because they're blocked whether they are disabled or whether they're young mums or young dads or young carers or other carers with prams. The real worry is the unintended consequences of subsection 6. I recognise the issue that the member has raised and I've received from representation in this matter myself. It's worth pointing out that it remains a criminal offence for a HGV or a lorry to park on a pavement. That remains a criminal offence. What we're trying to achieve here is a balance between those smaller vans that may be carrying out a delivery or picking up and to do so is the requirement to park on a pavement, not completely because you can't obstruct a whole of the pavement but to use part of the pavement for a short period of time in order to carry out that delivery or to pick up the goods where it wouldn't be reasonably able to do it by parking elsewhere. What we're trying to achieve here is the objective that you set out in terms of improving access for those who may have mobility issues with prams, visual issues, et cetera, to take away the potential hazards that they could face. At the same time, also recognising that there will be instances where it may be the only option that the driver of the van or the vehicle has in order to pick up something or to drop something off that there's a level of time that they've got in order to carry that out. I'm always minded at looking to see where there's ways in which we can improve the legislation, but I hope that the committee would recognise that we're trying to strike a balance here in a way that others are trying to achieve but at the same time recognise that for businesses there may be some practical challenges that they could come across. I understand entirely the issue of trying to strike a balance, but I'm trying to get across that with subsection 6. In attempting to strike the balance, you're actually reversing the law because the law at the moment doesn't allow people to drive on to pavements to unload. It is illegal to drive on to pavements now. What this bill does is allow that to happen. In fact, from the motivation that you have is to free up access for all the people that we've discussed, this one subsection might be ineffective legislation. My point is that if you've already got in the bill and you're talking about not wanting to have a top-down approach but understanding any other questions about local authorities, local authorities surely would be best placed to know their own roads and where there's a real problem. You're giving them already the ability to exempt those areas. I'm just asking could you really look at subsection 6 and stage 2 because I would rather prefer if the Government came forward at stage 2 and looked at that again? I'm more than happy to look at it again to see whether we've got the balance right and if there are potentially some unintended consequences that the member made reference to that we could address. Let me take that away and let's have a look at it. If there is a way in which we can help to address some of those concerns or possibly provide greater clarity around it, I'm more than happy to do that. If you have a question from other witnesses, when it says that the regulations are prohibiting parking on pavements, was there a question about does that include cycleways as well? Can you cover that, George? Yes, I can. Do you mean as in a cycle lane on the carriageway? Local authorities or cycle tracks could be segregated with a shared space, with a footway as well, so that's why I wanted to clarify that matter. Cycle lanes, local authorities already have the powers to make them mandatory, so they can promote a traffic regulation order, which would mean that you cannot stop on a cycle lane or park. However, it all determines how local authorities wish to take that forward. Many actually install advisory lanes, so cycle lanes as such are not covered in the bill as it stands. On a slightly wider issue of parking the pavements, I have a considerable number of streets in my constituency where the road is relatively narrow and the pavement is relatively wide. What I consider considerate drivers, and I do it myself, is to put two wheels on the pavement, which allows plenty of room for someone to pass on the pavement, but keeps the road clear for buses, bin lorries and larger vehicles. I have a slight problem with the idea of just a total ban, and I suspect that councils are going to find too much hassle and too much cost in exempting streets, so they won't do that. I just wonder if there is not an understanding of the consequence that some places where it would be perfectly reasonable to put two wheels on the pavement to prevent blockages on the road are going to create a problem on the roads. The intention of the bill is not just to have the blanket ban without the ability to have some areas where there may be exceptions, where there may be narrow roads but with wide pedestrian ways as well. There is scope within the bill for local authorities in areas that they have identified to apply an exemption, so long as the passenger pathway is at least 1.5m in size where they can apply exemptions, but it will be for individual local authorities to identify the areas within their respective areas as to where they believe that that should be applied depending on the circumstances. Would it not be simpler, both for the legislation and for the local authorities point of view, and cheaper, just to say that you have to leave—assuming that the pavement is more than 1.5m, you have to leave 1.5m clear. If it is less than one, you have to leave the whole thing clear. Would that not be simpler legislation, then the councils wouldn't have any costs and they would just have to enforce it as they would normally? As it stands, the provision will provide for an exemption that local authorities can apply based on local need and local circumstances. There will be a cost to that, won't there? Yes, but if you were to flip it round and you were to make them to apply this in areas where there will be a cost involved in that for them as well. If you said 1.5m in the legislation, there would be no cost. We can look to see whether that can be dealt with in the legislation or whether it can be dealt with just through regulation or through the guidance that makes it very clear for them that accompanies the bill. I'm not entirely sure where it needs to be in the face of the bill, though. Jamie Greene and Richard Lyle I have some sympathy with the cabinet secretary's view on the temporary exclusions. I think that it's imperative that we allow businesses to go about their normal business but still implement the policy intentions of the bill, so I think that you'll find some sympathy from me on that. However, on this issue of parking, I think that there's a very low level of understanding of what's coming down the road here with this in the sense that if this is introduced as planned, there will be a blanket pavement ban on two-wheel pavement parking. When you go around constituencies and regions, you realise how much of it takes place. My problem with this is that there's absolutely nothing in the bill that will help local authorities to deal with those traffic issues. Where will people park is the question that I'm being asked. Where else can we park? There is nowhere else to park. There's nothing in here to offer any assistance to local authorities other than to apply for exemptions under the rules that you've dictated to them nationally. I just don't see any real long-term solution to the problem here. To try and address some of those issues, we've already got engagement with local authorities a meeting yesterday that took place with local authorities to look at managing some of those issues, which can then be addressed to the guidance that accompanies the bill to help to support them. I recognise that there will be some local authorities where it will be a greater challenge on others. I'm thinking in particular in places like Glasgow and Edinburgh where you've got tenements and some of the streets are narrower and the pavements are more limited, but you know you may have a four or five-story tenement. The other idea is that everybody in that block has got a car as well, so there will be areas where there will be specific challenges. Part of the work that we're doing with local authorities is to look at how we can make sure that we've got the necessary guidance for them so that they know where they actually have to apply the exemptions where it's appropriate. At the same time, making it very clear that where it can be applied is that this is what the standard rule should now be not being able to park on the pavement. As you say, there are tenements with maybe six, sometimes more cars in a single block, and there are only two spaces outside it. Those cars aren't going to disappear when the legislation comes in, and if there are no other parking provisions made available, more importantly, there is no additional funding made available to support local authorities. Again, I'm not asking that the central government starts building car parks everywhere, but there is a real issue at stake here, and the cars aren't disappearing, but there's nowhere to go. I'm not convinced that we are really addressing the root cause of the problem. Part of the idea is to try and help to provide local authorities with the powers to be able to take these things into account in areas where they're going to apply exemptions. Those are the types of issues that they would have to consider in making an assessment in determining where they are going to apply an exemption in a particular area. Richard? I think that following on Jamie Greene's point, there has to be common sense in that, because there are some areas where both sides of the road are filled with cars and they're not parking on the pavement and they're parking as legally they should now when this bill comes in. I don't think that a fire engine emergency services may get through. I can think of some interesting roads in Glasgow and I can think of some interesting roads in other areas, but I'll part that one. I think that we got it, Richard. Yeah, good. I hope that you had. The pedestrian areas in Glasgow, Edinburgh and some towns that shops are on. I can think of quite a number if you want to go out and shop. Quite interestingly, you're working along in a van that comes along at 9 o'clock in the morning because they're delivering to a particular shop that doesn't have a back shop and they deliver from the front access. Contrary, it's an alternative to what Mike was saying. I actually agree with what Mike Rumbles was on about, but basically a question I want to ask you is what reassurance can you offer to delivery firms and businesses that the pavement and double parking prohibitions will not unduly affect their operation and will the parking standards document currently under development offer any clarity on this issue? Many companies are going to turn around and say, well, where do we, how do we deliver to a shop in the middle of Glasgow, a shopping centre? The document will engage with stakeholders as part of the consultation around that and that will also involve those in the industry who have a view around what the parking standards should actually be, but it should help to give clarity to what those standards will be. On your first point, I would echo what I said to Mike Rumbles and that is that we're trying to strike a balance between freeing up access on paths to remove obstructions while at the same time recognising that there are individuals going about the legitimate business. It's not just about delivering something, but there's also an issue around, which we shouldn't lose sight of, is that there are health and safety challenges here for folk that are carrying out deliveries, is that the vehicle has to be parked much further away sort of idea, the risks to them as well, so there's a balance that we're trying to strike here. If there are ways in which we can try and help to address some of the concerns that people have around that, I'm open to looking at that and we'll take that away to see what other things we can do, but there are balances that we have to try and achieve. Colin, you want us to come in for a move to Maureen. Can I just touch on the issue around enforcement? My understanding of the bill is that a local authority has the power to take enforcement action where there's been a contravention of the pavement parking or double parking prohibition, but does that mean that where parking hasn't been decriminalised, a council enforcement officer will be able to put a parking ticket on somebody parking on a pavement, but they won't be able to put a parking ticket on a car next to it, parked on WR lines? If it's in an area where they have not decriminalised parking, it would be a matter for the police to enforce it. George, maybe just to take you through that and how that will operate. At the moment, that's the way it stands. However, this bill will provide powers for all local authorities to carry out enforcement. We're continuing to work with stakeholders to discuss enforcement to get consistency right across this country. There are some local authorities that do not have decriminalised parking enforcement, but they do have off-street car parks that they have parking attendants for, so they may use them. We are looking at whether authorities can share services from neighbouring authorities as well, so it works on going with that, as we speak. Just to be clear, under the bill, where it isn't decriminalised, it seems to be implying that the local authority will be able to put a parking ticket on a car parked on a pavement, because it specifically mentioned the bill, but the car next to it, on WR lines, at the moment, it wouldn't be able to put a parking ticket on that unless it goes through the whole decriminalisation process. That's correct, does it stand? Are we not missing a trick, then? Why are we not using the bill to either completely decriminalise parking? Since traffic warrants were scrapped by Police Scotland, which my view is short-sighted, it's a shame, but since that's happened, more and more local authorities are moving towards decriminalisation, but that process is very lengthy. It's actually very expensive. It actually means that we have to bring legislation before this Parliament for every individual local authority. SSIs require to come before this committee and Parliament. It's a very bureaucratic, lengthy process. Shouldn't we be using this bill simply to at the very least simplify that process? A single line that says, if a local authority wants to decriminalise, we can do it like that, instead of having to go through the current very bureaucratic process, or should we not just completely decriminalise altogether, because you will have a two-tier system under this bill for pavement parking and other parking offences where it's not decriminalised at the moment? You're right in terms of some of the bureaucracy around the decriminalisation process. What I'll do is take away the point that the member raised and give consideration to act to see whether there is a way in which we can use the bill as it stands at the present moment to simplify that process or to improve that process. I don't know whether that would be possible within the bill, but I'm certainly more than happy to take that away and look at it and to engage with our colleagues at COSLA around whether there is a way in which we can do it as well. The majority of witnesses that we had were supportive of the proposals on pavement parking and double parking, but one thing that has come up is about parking in front of dropped kerbs, and I have a number of constituents who we've gone out with the local authority to see what can be done, and there is a public petition in this matter. Is it possible that we can, in this bill, or is it needed in this bill to have double yellow lines in front of dropped kerbs? We have an increasingly elderly population, and I think that if we're going to be talking about inclusivity and making sure that everybody can play their full part in society, it really doesn't happen if inconsiderate people are parking in front of dropped kerbs. I fully sympathise and recognise the challenges that people have when individuals park in front of dropped kerbs, and the additional risk that that causes for individuals who may have to take an alternative route where there isn't a drop kerb in order to make crossing the road. There are also some challenges around definitions of dropped kerbs, etc., which are technical challenges that we had, but the officials have been working on this to look at whether there is provision that we can make in the bill to give greater certainty around those matters. George, can you explain a bit further about the work that we have been taking following in this front? I think that Jamie Greeney had raised about displacement, and it has been mentioned with Ellie's heads and parking. Domestic driveways is something that is considered when we have been discussing this with stakeholders. The Scottish Government has received powers via the Scotland Act 2016 to legislate on parking at dropped kerbs. However, we are aware that stakeholders have expressed concerns about dropped kerbs not being covered on the face of the bill. We have been considering what dropped kerbs should be included and we are addressing those issues with stakeholders. That is basically whether it is a known crossing point that should fundamentally be a national ban. Nobody should park over a drop kerb, which is a known crossing point. However, the domestic driveway would have quite a big impact on displacement of vehicles, and those are the types of things that we are discussing with stakeholders at the moment. I do not think that it should be too difficult. I think that most people know the distinction between somebody's dropped kerb in front of their driveway to get their own car in and something that is near a crossing or near a shopping centre. We would expect most people not to park in front of a dropped kerb, but that is not happening, unfortunately. I think that there needs to be some legislation. I fully accept that people should understand that, but as I am sure the member recognises that some people do not understand that. Part of the technical issue here is defining it. There is no grey area, but it is black and white, and there are some technical issues that we need to work through so that we are quite clear on that definition. That is what we are working on just now to see how we can take that forward. I have been particularly taken by the argument about parking in front of dropped kerbs, and it is perhaps as a result of this committee that I now look to see where dropped kerbs are. Some of them are in the Inverness loading base, which is an interesting place to have them. It may just not be that a blanket place for dropped kerbs and parking in front would preclude. There may need to be some moved, because I think that the whole issue is very important. Cabinet Secretary, we are now going to take another pause, just while we allow the committee evidence witnesses to change over. I will get it right eventually. Short pause, thank you. We will now move on to the third part of this evidence session, which is on roadworks, canals and regional transport partnerships. I welcome CatK, the roadworks policy officer, John Gray, the policy manager on regional transport partnerships, Brian Spence, the canals policy officer, and Kevin Gibson, a solicitor. The first question on this session is from the Deputy Secretary for Communities, Kevin Vino, Cal Ross. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary, panel. I want to talk about the Scottish roadworks commissioner. Witnesses have been broadly supportive of the proposed new powers and the new duties and requirements that are placed on those carrying out roadworks. I want to ask you about one particular thing to start off with. One of the issues that has come up in our evidence session was the power of unannounced entry to premises. Is that proportionate for investigating roadworks issues? I believe that it is, yes. On the basis that the purpose of the inspection that has been carried out is to allow the commissioner to establish the facts, in particular circumstances. That is a power that requires them to get a warrant or for the purposes of making the entry, so it is not a process that they do not have to go through to check as to whether it is appropriate and is required. Very often, those types of inspections will be taking place on life carriageways in limited conditions as well, but it gives them the power where there is a situation where a contractor may be obstructing their ability to get access to the necessary information that they require for carrying out their inspection for the commissioner to look at where they are required to get a warrant for the purpose of making to be able to get access. I believe that it is necessary. I would hope that it does not require to be used much, but given the importance of their role, I think that it is important that they have the ability to have recourse to taking forth the entry if necessary. What qualifications and standards would be used by the inspectors when their access works sites? In terms of the qualifications for the inspectors themselves, I will get officials to give you more detail about the type of qualifications that they have, but the individuals who will carry it out should have a good background knowledge within the industry and an understanding of the inspection standards that they are applying during the course of any inspection. I can give you a bit more of a feel for the types of qualifications that they may have. Luckily, there is one standard for operatives and one for supervisors for the whole of the UK. It is the industry standard that everyone already works to. Any inspector of a site, no matter whether they are there as the person digging the hole or the person going to inspect the hole, as happens just now with local authorities, would be the training and accreditation group standard streetworks qualification for an operative or for a supervisor. I would expect a supervisor for a commissioner or an inspector. Thank you. We spoke to OpenReach in one of our evidence sessions and they have raised concerns about the security of their infrastructure and the requirements to share that on the Scottish Roadworks register. It was mentioned that in the past it was maybe a concern about commercial sensitivities and it is now a concern about data security. Is that something that you are going to look at at stage 2 and what discussions are on going with OpenReach and others about that? Of course. It is an issue of consideration. For example, the existing access to the website does have security provisions on it to be able to get access to that information. We would expect that to be updated and to continue to be reinforced if there are further security measures that need to be put in place to restrict access to information on the system. There are provisions at the present moment and I would expect the commissioner to keep that under review and to look at where they have to update it and put further security measures in place so that there is only access to the actual information for those who are intuited to get access to it. Does that apply not just to OpenReach but to everyone else that is put into the infrastructure? Yes, it would. For the information that is made available on the commissioner's website to which it hosts, it would be for access to all of that information. It would be a gatekeeping process for getting access to it. So who would be able to access that information and what reasons would they need to give to be able to access that? Anyone with a statutory right to dig in the road—the undertakers, the roads authorities—there are certain special cases, the commissioner's office itself, and it would only be for the purposes of digging up the road for safe digging. Thank you, that's very helpful. During the evidence session with the Scottish Roadworks Commissioner himself, he raised the issue of lane rental charges. Is that something that the Scottish Government are minded to pursue anytime in the future? Yes, I'm conscious of that because lane rental charges have been used in England and Wales as a way of trying to address issues around delays and the completion of works, et cetera, and they've proven to be fairly effective in assisting them to do so. However, the system that we have in place at the present moment already does that. We've got a national system in place in Scotland that works very effectively. Levels of delay are shorter than that for England and Wales. I don't think that it's necessary to add it into the mix because the existing provisions that we have at the present moment are working relatively well, and they are working fairly efficiently as well, given that delays in Scotland are below that of England and Wales, where they have the lane charging arrangements. A series of supplementaries, Jamie. Thank you, just a brief one. Will the cabinet secretary understand drivers and businesses frustration that, when there's a series of roadworks in one specific area—the example that came up recently was a particular street in Dundee that saw three different utilities come in over a very long period of time, causing havoc to their fruit fall and their businesses. From a driving point of view, there's nothing worse than saying that roadworks pack up at 5 p.m. on Friday and then nothing takes place until a Monday morning. It just seems bizarre to most people. Is there anything in the bill that will give Scottish roadworks commissioners any additional powers to ensure that utilities companies do the work as quickly as possible so that we're not saying that it went as an effect to three-day halt to works because it's the weekend or because it's the evening? Well, look, I not only understand frustrations, I experience frustrations myself. So, I often come across sites where, when we can't be dug up by one company and then a couple of months later it seems to be dug up by an art utility company, which is a frustration part of the work that local authorities do is to try and help to bring those types of things together. If there are a number of utility companies that are planning to carry out work in their area when they indicate that they're planning to do so, it's to try and bring that together, to try and minimise it. It clearly isn't a perfect system given your experience, my experience and I'm sure for everyone else, but there is an attempt to try and help to align those types of things as and when it can happen. One of the roles that the commissioners has got is to actually look at inspecting how some of that process has been managed as well to see if there are further things that could be done in order to help to reduce that type of inconvenience. On the issue of working over the weekends, I suspect that it's larger commercial decision that's made by employers on… You could address that if it really wanted to. You could enforce utilities to do work in the shortest time possible, rather than leave it to commercial decisions because it's too expensive to pay people overtime at the weekends. So, there is some provision to do that. I can't maybe just explain that to you. So, under the nurse where right now there's already a provision for local authorities to issue what's called a what's section 125 direction, which says road works have to take the shortest time possible. I mean, there's an obligation for that to happen anyway, but there's a specific direction. Given the commissioners office additional powers to be able to see how authorities are using them, because it's absolutely going to be a level playing field, they'll be able to look at road authorities as well as utilities, they'll be able to get that information if that's not happening. Okay, we move on to Richard Lyle. Sorry, no, Stuart Richards first. There is a strict rotation and I try and follow it to the best of my ability. Richard, yours is next. Yeah, I totally agree with the comments that have made by Jamie Greene and yourself. And the frustration is that certain roads are actually dug up continually. You know, laid down, dug up, laid down, dug up. I had an example which I won't continually hammered because I mentioned in my constituency. But the other factor is that a lot of car drivers get annoyed when a lane is conned off for work, and we know why it's for safety reasons to ensure that the staff are fine with it. Again, it's coned and nobody's on it. It's coned for maybe half a mile, quarter of a mile, and there's nobody working on it, very frustrating. So basically, I would agree that we should try and get companies working together to dig up roads at the same time and put down their utilities at the same time, and also ensure that companies are using the time to ensure that work is on-going so that it's minimal delay to motorists. Very frustrating, as you already said, cabinet secretary. I'm not sure that there's a question there or a pitch for your job, cabinet secretary. Do you agree with what I've just said? Depends what you're asking for, Richard. Maybe I've kept the question that you can take offline, I think that Richard's made his point. Thank you. And then I have a quick question for you. I just wanted to return to the issue of open reach and its critical infrastructure. I'm just looking at the Scottish Roadworks Commissioner website, and there are two bits of roadwork adjacent to this building. There's one at the bottom of the Carnegie and there's one starting on the 26th of November at just 100 metres away, which is Scottish Gas Networks, and the road will be up for 21 days. But it's here in the public domain, so I'm a bit puzzled to the suggestions that some things are not going to be there. Is that because, in legal terms, open reaches network is part of critical national infrastructure? There's a particular definition under UK security legislation, whereas the Gas Network, which I would have thought, in many ways, you could do an awful lot more damage by knowing where the Gas Network is than you would by intervening on the telephone network. That just displays the security. What you're looking at is the public-facing website, which shows the public what works are planned in the future. Anyone can access that. What open reach you're talking about is the secure vault system on the Scottish Roadwork Register that you can't access, that you can't just get into a website, you need a password, you need to be set up. That information is not accessible to the public. Yes. I hear what you say but I don't understand what it means. Can you explain what it is that I'm not getting? Would it be tea or open reach? I do apologise. We're digging the road up at the front of the Parliament here. Would it appear on the map here and would I see it? Would you see it? You would see a little. So what is it that I'm not seeing? I'll explain. If they have works planned, what you'll see on that website is a little roadworks, Manitworks 7001 sign, that shows roughly what they're planning to do and roughly when they're planning to do it. What open reach you're concerned about are the lines on the map that show exactly where their cables are, exactly where their junction boxes are, where their overhead is, which you can see without a map because it's overhead. So that's what they're concerned about. It's the actual maps of where their infrastructure actually is when no one's digging it up. That clears my fog of mystery. Cabinet Secretary, one of the questions that I continually get raised on roadworks is the fact that roadworks, we've had mention of being left at weekends, but speed limits left at weekends on roads that appear to be functioning perfectly well when there's no workforce present. It is a constant problem. I could quote, you know, examples on the A9 right the way across Scotland. So is that a missed opportunity in this bill? Surely we should be removing roadworks or speed reductions at a weekend if there's no one there and there's no need for them. It's not in the bill. Yeah, the bill's not seeking to address us at all. It's dealing with the Scottish Roadworks Commission. Yeah, but should he not have the power to do that, to instruct that? Well, going back to the point that was made earlier on is that there are provisions for local authorities to make sure that the work's being carried out as timeously as possible within the shortest frame of time possible. They cannot issue direction if that's not the case. There's no plans to make provision for contractors to remove roadworks over the course of the weekend while they're undertaking roadworks at that particular point. I would expect that roadworks to be completed in timelessly a period as possible to get it completed rather than close it off at the weekend and open it back up on a Monday, which will probably take longer to do it that way in itself. But there's no specific provision. That's not a bit that the bill's trying to address. Okay. Right. The question now from Mike Rumbles. Mike. Canals. The bill is 75 sections, very comprehensive, and there's only one section dealing with canals, and that's about doubling the size of the board. So are we relying for legislation on the canal network, legislation of another 62 act, which is more than half a century old, and does the Scottish Government have any plans to legislate in the area of canals? I'm thinking of the power to ensure that we keep the canals open because they are increasing for leisure use, increasingly useful in Scotland, but we seem to be relying on very old legislation. Any plans to update it? There's no plans to update the legislation at the present moment. Larger than the basis that Mark The Fishes has not been highlighted to us, some of the challenges that we'll face in terms of our canal infrastructure is not so much to do with legislation, it's just to do with its age, and the need to keep that updated and upgraded which presents challenges of canals to my constituency, and it's largely down to issues relating to infrastructure challenges. So if Scottish canals are highlighting that there are particular deficiencies or will do highlight that there are particular challenges around the existing legislative structure, I'd be more than willing to consider that, but at the present moment they haven't done so. One example is another duty to keep the canals open, the navigable. We've had closures along the canals that have just been renovated. I'm just thinking of the union canal. There is a requirement for them to do that under the existing legislation. Well, they have been closed. For example, we provide them with some additional funding to address some bridge structures that had to be invested in because they were resulting in canal closures as well. What they try to do as a body is that Scottish canals try to programme their infrastructure investment programme to deal with the issues that could potentially result in canal closures, but there will be incidents that occur where they may require some additional resource to help to address those. We provide them, as I say in a couple of examples, with additional resources to help. One of which was in my constituency by chance when the Bonny bridge failed and had to be repaired. Infrastructure fails will happen and they have to address those because they have got a legal requirement to maintain commercial access. Right to the committee and just let us know under what legislation they have that requirement at the moment, because I'm not quite clear. We can do that, yes. Thank you, cabinet secretary. We now have some questions on matters that members want to raise individual matters. John. Thanks, convener. On the one hand, I'm not a fan of just throwing things into bills which haven't been consulted on along the way. However, it has been raised with me the question of littering from vehicles. While that's, you know, in one sense, environmental issues raise a serious issue, because I know that the signs are often put up in the motorways that actually risks lives, because workers have to go out there and pick up the litter when vehicles are going past at 70 miles an hour. Has the Government any thoughts about either here or somewhere else strengthening legislation in that area? Luke, it's an issue that I'm not unsympathetic to. I'm going to give consideration whether it can be addressed in this bill or whether it should be addressed through other legislation, because there is nothing more frustrating than sitting behind a car and seeing folk just dump rubbish out the side of the window at the side of the carriageway. We'll also operate at 70 work at the side of the roads and motorways as well, in potentially dangerous conditions, because people just can't take the time to take their own rubbish and put it in a bin from their car. I've already decided to give some consideration to the matter and whether it should be addressed in this bill or whether it should be addressed in our piece of legislation. That brings us to the end of our questions on the transport bill. I'd like to thank you Cabinet Secretary and the witnesses who brought along for the evidence that you've given this morning. I believe that we're seeing you on 5 December to discuss a wider range of issues than just the transport bill, but to do with other matters. Thank you very much and we look forward to seeing you on 5 December. I briefly suspend the meeting for five minutes. We move back into session now to consider agenda item 3, which is European Union Withdrawal Act legislation. We have received consent notifications in relation to nine UKSIs as detailed on the agenda. Those cover the following policy areas, pesticides and fertilisers, animal health, organic products and intelligent transport. All the instruments are being laid in the UK Parliament in relation to the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. All nine have been categorised by the Scottish Government in general as making minor or technical amendments. Two of the proposed SI's on pesticides and fertilisers also contain provisions creating or amending powers to make regulations, including transferring current EU legislation powers to minister. In the committee's paper there are some broader related policy issues which may arise in the future, which the committee may wish to note and request a response from the Scottish Government. Before I invite comments, I would ask if any committee member wants to make any declarations in relation to the instruments and consideration of them. I am going to start it off by saying that in my register of interests I have a recorded farming interest and, as those cover these areas, I would ask the committee to note my interests. Does anyone else wish to do Peter? Likewise, convener, obviously these instruments are concerned on agriculture and I have an agricultural interest also. Does anyone else know? That is fine. Are there any comments from the committee in relation to the instrument? Just very simply, the recommendation that we write to the Scottish Government to confirm that we are content is the one that I would wish us to adopt. Before we all agree, can I just put it then formally to say that the committee agreed therefore that it should write to the Scottish Government to confirm that it is content for consent to be given to the UK SI's referred to in the notifications to be given. We are agreed. I think that that is, as it is, agreed. Will there be some additional points that were raised, which I think are important and we could include those in the consent, just ask the Government to consider them? I think that that would be a sensible way to approach. Is everyone happy to do that? Maureen Fawr? I will get to start the clerks to identify those. They are detailed in the papers. Just asking the Government to note them as part of the consent process. I do not think that there is anything complicated in that. Maureen, are you happy with that? Okay, thank you. We are agreed that we will write and ask them to note that. Has that therefore agreed, we are now going to move into private session, so I therefore close this part of the meeting.