 Good morning, and welcome back to the committee's 19th meeting in 2019. Can I ask those people who've joined the committee at this stage to make sure your mobile phones are on silent? We are now moving on to agenda item 2, which is the Transport Scotland Bill. We're going to begin our consideration of stage two amendments to that bill. I'd like to welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity I will briefly explain the procedure of how this meeting will continue for those who are watching. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the First Amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and speak to all the other amendments in the group. I then will call on other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in that group who wish to speak should catch my attention. If he has not already spoken to the group, I will then invite the Cabinet Secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the First Amendment in that group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check to whether the member who has moved the First Amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to vote on that amendment. If any member does not want to move the amendment when called, they should say not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will then immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members will be allowed to vote, and voting in the division will be by a show of hands. If I could remind members that it's important that they keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. Today, we are hoping to get through part 1 and 2 of the bill. At that stage, we shall move straight on to the amendments. The first amendment that I am going to call is amendment 40 in the name of Colin Smyth in a group on its own. Colin Smyth, please move and speak to amendment 40. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 40 in my name sets out key principles that I believe should be at the heart of our transport system. The transport bill provides an opportunity to place those in legislation. Setting them in legislation provides a long-term vision for our transport system. At a time, the Government is about to embark on a review of our national transport strategy. This amendment would place a duty on relevant bodies to act in line with those principles when carrying out such a review and ensuring that transport policy is guided in a meaningful way. The principles themselves reflect the priorities that most of us hold for transport while being broad enough not to be restrictive. Putting those principles on a statutory footing will help guide policymaking to deliver the outcomes that we want to see. There will, of course, be an opportunity to add or amend to the exact wording at stage 3 if members have specific concerns over the wording of the particular amendment. There is precedent for setting up principles such as this in law. Section 1 of the Government's Social Security Act sets out clearly the Scottish Government's Scottish Social Security principle. I am happy to move amendment 40 in my name, and I am sure that I will get unanimous support to get as often as I want to start. Stuart McMillan, you would like to pass a comment. Thank you very much. I have a number of comments about the way in which this amendment is constructed. First one is that 2A transport is a key enabler for the realisation of all other human rights. It is worth reminding ourselves that everything that we do in this Parliament is already covered by a requirement to conform to the European Convention on Human Rights. It would appear, unless I hear otherwise to be superfluous to make that particular statement. In any event, all our legislation could equally be described for the reason of just stated. Further down, we have a number of mentions of starting at 2B, the delivery of transport as a public services support is the common good. The word transport presents a substantial difficulty when it stands naked and without qualification, because my private car is transport, a commercial aircraft is transport and when we are getting down to D3, ensure affordability is not a barrier to people accessing transport services, that draws within it because of the use of the term that is used. My getting on a first-class flight from Scotland all the way to Australia, there would be a requirement that the transport system makes that affordable for me. Without addressing the underlying policy issue that is associated with this amendment, I think that the construction of the amendment does not meet the needs of any policy that I could sensibly support. First of all, I thank Colin Smyth for his amendment. It is a good start to the session. I think that there are some admirable intentions in the wording here. I think that delivering public transport that is accessible, universal, affordable, geographically consistent and sustainable are all themes that the committee has debated in great detail since it started. However, they are admirable policies, but they are policies. I would suggest that Mr Smyth instead could put them in his party's next manifesto rather than on the face of the transport bill. I think that they are admirable policies, which I commend them for. However, I think that there is an overly prescriptive list of policies that the Government wants to take on board, but it does not describe any context as to how they would be achieved or, indeed, how much any of it would cost. For that reason, we would be unable to support amendment 40. Thank you. John. Thank you very much indeed. Like others, I think that there are admirable principles and I am very much supportive of them. I listened to what Mr Stevenson said and I do not think that that would preclude support and clarification if that was thought necessary, so I will certainly be lending support to Colin. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, convener. I would like to welcome the fact that Mr Smyth's amendments look at transport in its wider strategic context. It is welcome because it is very easy to get bogged down in the detail of legislation and to lose sight of the bigger picture. Much of the language of the amendment reflects the work that this Government has been doing as part of a review of the national transport strategy on which we are due to consult this summer. The strategy puts in equality and the promotion of fairness, accessibility, sustainability, health and wellbeing at the heart of transport. These are all themes reflected in the provisions proposed here by Mr Smyth. Our draft vision for the strategy is that we will have a sustainable, inclusive and accessible transport system, helping to deliver a healthier, more prosperous and fairer Scotland for communities, businesses and visitors. The vision is underpinned by four themes. Those include a priority to promote equality, which is designed to achieve outcomes of affordability and accessibility of transport. This sits alongside three further priorities relating to tackling climate change, helping our economy prosper and improving our health and wellbeing. Many of the principles in Colin Smyth's amendment are therefore already at the heart of the work that this Government is taking forward through its national transport strategy review, and we will seek to embed in a national strategic context when the review is concluded. There is an argument that policy principles of this kind are better expressed in such strategic guidance. They are a relative lack of technical precision. It may sit uneasily in legislation and the relative certainty and rigidity with which they would require to be interpreted in that context may be counterproductive. Of course, guidance documents backed by statute, if necessary, offer a more flexible and responsive means by which to set out key strategic objectives for the delivery of public functions. Therefore, it is not persuaded that statutory duties are the most effective means of achieving the aims that Mr Smyth has in mind here. Those concerns aside, certain aspects of how the amendment is drafted is potentially problematic. The main duty in subsection 1 is that Scottish ministers, local authorities, local transport authorities and RTPs must, when exercising their functions in relation to transport, do so with the objective of adhering to the principles set out in subsection 2. It is not clear what legal consequences it is intended to follow if a person subject to the duty does not adhere to the principles or could be shown not to have the objectives adhered to in taking for their policy. The functions to which the duty is to apply are also uncertain. The phrase functions in relation to transport may capture functions of a broadly strategic nature to which these principles or principles, like them, may be relevant but may also encompass operational transport functions such as traffic regulation functions with obligations to adhere to principles of this kind may be inappropriate when set against the public safety imperative that underpin the exercise of those functions. While the general thrust of the principles themselves is commendable, the specific framing of some of those is also a matter which could cause some ambiguity and would also have consequences to their legal effect. For all of those reasons, while I am sympathetic to Mr Smith's aims, I cannot support this amendment, but I would like to consider whether we can embed those principles in our national transport strategy or, alternatively, agree to return at stage 3 with revised amendment. I would hope that Colin Smyth would agree to work with me and my officials in taking forward that consideration. Additionally, I am aware that Mr Smith has lodged amendments on accessibility and on meeting the needs of those living in poverty and on low incomes in relation to bus services. Those amendments will, of course, be debated later, but I would in particular like to explore with Mr Smith between now and stage 3 whether issues of this kind may be more appropriate as a matter which could be set out in the transport principles, whatever form that may take. As such, I would ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 40, but if pressed, I would urge a committee to vote against it. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for that comprehensive explanation. Colin, would you like to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. As a nation, we have lost sight of the bigger picture that was mentioned earlier of what our transport system should be about, particularly the fact that it is and should be a public service that is accessible to all. The specific points raised by Stuart Steves and the cabinet secretary sounded very much like concerns over specific wording and those can clearly be dealt with at stage 3. I will give a commitment to Jamie Greene that those will be in the next Labour manifesto and I look forward to his full support. However, in light of what the cabinet secretary has offered to work on the detailed principles, potentially an amendment at stage 3 or setting out those principles in another way, then I would be happy not to press the amendment at this stage and take up that offer to discuss the matter further. OK. Thank you, Colin. I have to ask, therefore, if any member objects to the amendment being withdrawn. OK. Thank you. We will now call amendment 32 in the name of Jamie Greene, group with amendments 220 and 201. Jamie Greene, can you move amendment 32 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you. From the outset, I will move amendment 32 and 201, if required. From the outset, when we are talking about low emission zones, I wanted to add a primary objective that sets out a clear purpose for how each low emission zone should follow. In effect, that stipulates that the purpose of a low emission zone is to reduce transport-related emissions in and within the vicinity of the zone in which it operates. The wording itself has taken and has been lifted from the National Emissions Sealings Regulation 2018 bill, which is a UK piece of legislation transposing an EU directive of a similar name and nature, which provides an up-to-date definition of emission standards, which is consistent across the UK and, indeed, across Europe. I appreciate that it seems rather detailed and specific, but I feel that it is necessary for part 1 of the bill to contain an overarching and specific purpose. My rationale for this is threefold. The first is that it removes any ambiguity over what the zones are for and what they are trying to achieve. There is a whole point of low emission zones in my views to improve air quality within the proximity of a zone. It is fair to say that reducing congestion, improving average road speeds, generating revenue for local authorities are all, indeed, by-products of the zones, but I want public support for those and to take drivers and road users with us on this journey. We need to be clear to them that this is not just attacks on motorists. The zones will have a positive and measurable impact on their cities. That is the second reason. Having a defined purpose allows us to monitor the success or otherwise of a zone. If nitrogen oxide emissions and particulate matter levels do not fall as a result of a zone, then clearly something is amiss. If we have a vague definition of the zone, then it is virtually impossible to ascertain whether it has been successful in its aims. As we saw as a committee when we questioned Nottingham Council over the workplace parking livy, they found it difficult to pinpoint the specific environmental benefits of that measure as it was part of a package of measures. Instead, it was often seen largely as a revenue-generating activity in which low-emission zones are not nor should be. The third reason is that I have later amendments which link that the revenue generated from the fines achieved through the zones must go towards meeting the overarching objective of the zone. I hope that members will agree that there should be a purpose of a low-emission zone on the face of the bill. My wording tries to identify something that is measurable as opposed to a vague concept, which makes it impossible to measure against and equally could be used subjectively to decide if a zone is working or not. Colin Smyth's amendment tries to do something similar, but, in my view, the wording is such that it is helpful but unmeasurable. For that reason, I think that my wording is better. Amendment 201 inserts, indeed, as I am proposing a primary objective for the zone. That relates to the setting up, section 9 of the bill, setting up a zone and, indeed, requires that local authorities set objectives that complement and contribute towards the primary objective of the zone. Amendment 201 stipulates that any secondary objective set by local authorities must be aligned with the primary purpose on the face of the bill. Colin Smyth, can I ask you to speak to amendment 20 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Amendment 220, in my name, introduces a definition of the purpose of an LEZ. That was one of the committee's stage 1 recommendations. It helps to clarify the purposes of LEZs and, in practical terms, will ensure that all schemes are developed in line with this overall aim. I appreciate the bill. It already requires LEZs to contribute towards local authorities' objectives under the Environment Act 1995. I believe that we should be clear about the specific role to be played by LEZs beyond local authorities' existing responsibilities. As we have already heard, Jamie Greene has taken a similar amendment 32, but I do have some concerns around the specific wording. The wording of Jamie's amendment excludes that the Pm10 particles are among the most dangerous elements of air pollution and that reducing them is crucial to a successful LEZ. If the amendment is agreed, amendment 32 is critical that the reference to Pm10 is added at stage 3. However, I also have a broader concern about how specific amendment 32 is as new technologies are developed in the future. There is a chance that this will result in new pollutants being released into the atmosphere by detailing on the face of the bill what constitutes air pollution. There is a risk that it will not be fit for purpose in the long term. I believe that the language used in my amendment provides a more comprehensive and more future-proof definition to coin Jamie Greene's phrase, I think that it is better. Additionally, my amendment calls for on-going improvements to air quality. I think that this is important. There is no safe level of air pollution and LEZs should be seeking to continually improve air quality as long as they are in place so that an on-going basis does not simply reduce it on a one-off basis. Thank you, Colin. Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, convener. Talking on Jamie Greene's number 32, like Colin Smith, I think that the omission of the 10 micrometres particles is quite serious. I have tried to have a very quick look at the legislation that Jamie Greene referred to, but I, in the one minute available, I haven't been able to read it comprehensively, but I will say that the definition of fine particulate matter, which is provided in Jamie Greene's amendment, being particles with a narrow dynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometres presents a very substantial difficulty. The definition of a particle includes the words atom and molecule, and it is of necessity that emissions from a vehicle in a low emissions zone will contain atoms and particles, even if they happen to be benign rather than malevolent. Therefore, as a definition, it fails the test unless, of course, Jamie can point me to that there is a further qualification in the legislation that he pointed to, and I was having a quick look at it to see if there was, that provides a definition of particle that makes more sense than the common definition that I find in the diction. That is 31. On Colin Smyth's 22.0, I have difficulties with the construction as well, while not having any objection to the underlying policy objective, in that it says, on-going improvements to the level of air quality. I am not sure that to the level is required, and I do not know what it means, and I have a suspicion that level creates an ambiguity that is unhelpful to the policy intention. The other thing that is there on-going, putting in the face of the bill, I have a difficulty with, because, of course, the ultimate success of a low-emission zone scheme is that there will be zero emissions that are harmful, and therefore, at that point, on-going improvements will cease to be possible. Therefore, the construction of the amendment, while the policy intention, I think, we can understand, does not adequately support it. Thank you, Sir John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Jamie Greene's, this is the first of a series of amendments, and despite his apparent enthusiasm for low-emission zones, there is a dilution of what the purpose is there. I am not remotely technical, but others have alluded to the science of it, and it is certainly my understanding that it misses some of the pollutants that we are concerned about, because it is so gnarly to find. I think that, inevitably, we get into discussions about the competence of motions. Well, they are competent if they would not be here, if people take exception to what they do, or they are not comprehensive enough, so be it. Certainly, it is my view that Colin Smyth's is broad enough for the purpose, and I will not be supporting Jamie Greene's, I will be supporting Colin Smyth. Thank you, John. Cabinet Secretary. Amendment 32, 220 and 201 call for the purpose of an LEZ to be included in the bill. In my view, those amendments are too restrictive. Amendment 32 would set the purpose of an LEZ around the reduction of two types of transport-related emissions, namely nitrogen oxide and particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micro metres. As our emission types may come into scope in the future, confining the purpose of an LEZ to addressing only those two types of pollutants is far too restrictive. Amendment 201 would limit any objective specified as part of a scheme to ensure that they are related to the purpose of a scheme as set out by amendment 32, improving air quality of two types of pollutants. As above, this would produce quite restrictive boundaries in the framing of an LEZ. In my view, it would potentially compromise its effectiveness. Amendment 220 would be an alternative to amendment 32 and 201 and would restrict the purpose of an LEZ to the improvement of air quality in all or part of a local authority area only. That amendment is broader than the other two put forward, however, it still results in restricting how LEZs can be formulated. I agree that low emission zones must be implemented where appropriate to improve air quality. That is why there is a clear mandatory requirement set out in section 94 that requires local authorities to put LEZs in place that help to meet the air quality objectives prescribed under section 87.1 of the Environment Act 1995. However, in implying that this is to be the sole purpose of an LEZ, the amendment ignores that the opportunity, both now and in the future, for other benefits to be realised in some shape or form for a local authority introducing an LEZ, for example, better placemaking that might include congestion management or bus prioritisation. Therefore, it is important that local authorities have the flexibility to set their scheme objectives and, thus, their LEZ purpose as they see fit. I would suggest that we outline the purpose of an LEZ and how to set objectives in the forthcoming LEZ guidance. Section 11 and 94 can also be used to explain the purpose of an LEZ. What is clear is that LEZs must be put in place first and foremost to help to improve air local air quality. If stakeholders continue to feel that the purpose should be outlined on the face of the bill, that could be considered and developed in conjunction with the Government ahead of stage 3. As those amendments are currently written, however, the purpose is too restrictive and would hinder future flexibility in the development and purpose of LEZs. For those reasons, convener, I cannot support amendment 32, 201 or 220 at this stage, but we will be open to considering how those amendments could be progressed ahead of stage 3. I would ask Jamie Greene and Colin Smyth not to press amendments 201 or 222, but if they are pressed, I would urge the committee to reject them. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, convener, and I thank members for their comments and feedback and the spirit in which it was given. Naturally, the purpose of my amendment was not to be overly prescriptive to make it unhelpful, but indeed it has been prescriptive in the sense that there are a number of other ways in which one can measure our quality. The point that I am trying to make, and I hope that this is the point is that I feel that there should be a purpose of the zone and the zone should be directly linked to air quality. In his answers, it is interesting that the cabinet secretary mentioned that local authorities may have other reasons for setting up a zone such as managing congestion or indeed other objectives. If that is the case, then they should look at measures that are best suited to those objectives such as congestion charges or parking levees or the forms of traffic flows or volumes in city centres. I always thought from day one that the purpose of a low emission zone is to improve air quality in the cities or the zones in which they operate. The point of my misguided wording, albeit amendment, is to ensure that we put something on the bill that is measurable. If it is not measurable, we will never know if the zones have succeeded or not. How many less fewer cars there are in the cities or how fast those cars are going at average speed, but it is about improving air quality. If the Government is willing to work with members who clearly, by nature of the two amendments that we have put in, have a view that there should be something that allows us to reflect on what the purpose of a zone is and the message to the public is that the purpose of a zone is to improve the air quality in the cities that they live in. I am sure that we would be happy to work with the Government on that, but bearing it away on page 5, section 9, one of the objectives must include a reference to another piece of legislation. I do not think that it is strong enough and, for that reason, I would hope that the Government will reflect on that. Thank you, Mrine. Can I ask you to press or withdraw your amendment? I will withdraw on that basis. Jamie Greene wishes to withdraw amendment 32. Does any member object? Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. I therefore call amendment 220 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 32. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. In light of the commitment by the Cabinet Secretary to work on potential wording for an amendment at stage 3, I will not move my amendment. Thank you. I now like to move on to low-emission zones and exemptions. I would like to call amendment 221 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, group with amendments 33, 34, 2, 30, 31, 203, 56, 57, 3 and 3a. Rachel Hamilton, could you please move amendment 221 and speak to the amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I move the amendment in my name. I recognise the importance of low-emission zones and the purpose that it strives to achieve in relation to air quality. However, it is necessary that community transport operators who access city centres in order to bring service users to essential health and social appointments are not penalised and obstructed from carrying out their duties. Currently, only one electric minibus exists on the market and the previous bus retrofit fund from the Energy Saving Trust did not apply to minibuses. Community bus operators are currently not well-placed to embrace technology and will need time to raise funds to invest in cleaner vehicles. As such, I believe that the Government should commit to an exemption and I hope that the committee will support my amendment. Thank you. I now call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 33 and all other amendments in the group. Jamie. Thank you, convener. I'm happy to support my colleagues' Rachel Hamilton's amendment and, indeed, amendment 1331, in the name of Murdo Fraser. I'm sure that we'll speak eloquently to those. I'll speak solely for the interests of time to my three amendments in this grouping, 33 and 34. 33 is, in essence, adding exemptions in terms of entry into low-emission zones. That is simply to allow emergency services to enter and exit the low-emission zones without incurring fees. The amendment proposes that we exempt police who enter the zones for official purposes, ambulances carrying out their functions, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Her Majesty's Coast Guard. The wording of those amendments has been taken from another part of the bill almost verbatim. The exemption is offered and enjoyed in part 4 of the bill on pavement parking. I feel that it should also be enjoyed by the same bodies in this part of the bill. I hope that the minister will find these reasonable requests. It seems only right to give these types of vehicles exemption to allow them to enter the zones as required until such times, hopefully, as they operate fully compliant fleets but in the occasion that they may not. I hope that this gives them some comfort. The next amendment might strike some as an odd one, but let me explain to the minister and the committee why I have included the exemption of a diplomatic vehicle. Members may or may not be aware, but when the congestion charge was introduced in London, foreign diplomats argued that it was a tax. Therefore, under the 1961 Vienna Convention, they were exempt from paying it. Local authorities believe that this was a charge, and that the diplomats should have to pay to enter the zone. As of May 2019, it is estimated that the UK Treasury has owed more than £116 million in unpaid fees. That resulted in a very lengthy, often amusing and at times very public dispute between local authorities, which bore quite substantial legal costs for the local authority concerned. In order to avoid this dispute occurring north of the border, we should simply decide whether we believe that those types of vehicles should be exempt from the emissions zone or not. I have no preference or view on it, but I have included the amendment that we should indeed settle the matter by making it clear whether they are in or out, to hope that the Government will give it. I am happy to, yes. The member says that he has no view on where another is, yet he has submitted an amendment to his position. Yes, absolutely. Let me explain why, Mr Finnie, because I think that it is for the Government to take a view on whether they think that those kinds of vehicles are or are not exempt from paying the fees. What I am trying to avoid is that we do not end up in a situation where there is ambiguity and people are arguing that the fines should not be paid. The scale of it in London was different. There are far more vehicles to which this relates. Of course, the scale of the fines were fairly substantial in unpaid fines to the local authorities there. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Government the opportunity to reflect on the issue and to take a view on it. I will be interested to hear the minister's response on that respect. My final amendment is related to time-limited exemptions. I am hoping that the purpose of this amendment is to give the Government the opportunity to perhaps explain more what the practical applications of time-limited exemptions are when we reviewed the bill. Section 18, around temporary suspension for events, seems very logical and clear, but it was unclear to many of us what the time-limited exemptions could or would be used for and for that reason why it required a one-year cap. By removing the cap in this amendment, I am hoping that it will prompt some clarity in the debate as to what the purpose of a time-limited exemption is and, indeed, the Government's thought logic behind the one-year cap. Perhaps the committee can take an informed view as to whether there is a need for a one-year cap or not. Thank you, Jamie. Richard Lyle. Can I ask you to speak to amendment 2, please, and other amendments in the group? Yes. First of all, convener, I have to record that I am the convener of the cross-party group for the Scottish section of the showman's guild. I move the amendments to my name. In support of the introduction of low-emission zones in cities, towns, villages where required, but I have tabled this amendment on behalf of the Scottish section of the showman's guild due to the fact that their members may have to drive through an emission zone to erect a fun fair at certain times of the year. Before anyone asks me what is a fun fair, here is the Oxford dictionary definition, a fair consisting of rides, side shows and other amusements. Should a type of equipment that a showman has to erect, their vehicle can be very large and mostly will be a diesel vehicle. Showmen have certain types of vehicles which are not on the road every day of the week, so they may keep their vehicle longer than most companies, therefore they may not comply to low-emission standards. Showmen have been allocated exemptions in most low-emission zones in England, and I quote from the Transport of London website, showmen's vehicles are eligible for 100 per cent discount from LEZ daily charge if they are registered to a person following the business of a travelling showman. For the vehicle to be eligible for the discount, it must be used for a performance, used for the purpose of providing the performance and used for carrying out the performance equipment. In amendments 3A and 3A, those amendments specify that an authority must grant an exemption to showmen's vehicles which have been driven through a low emission zone to set up or dismantle a fun fair. A showman may have several pieces of equipment to take to the fairground but has to transport each ride separately, therefore he or she may go through the zone on the same day towing one piece of equipment one way but coming back through the zone with no equipment attached. He or she may go through the zone on many occasions as that is why I have amended amendment 3 and added amendment 3A in order to cover that particular fact. Again, I raise the fact that low emission zones in England have granted showmen and the persons who are employed in the direction of fun fairs 100 per cent discount from LEZ charges. In regards to other members in the group, unfortunately I cannot support any of them. Well, there you go, Mr Llaw. Murdo Fraser, can I ask you to speak to amendment 30 and any other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. Like other members, I am supportive of the principle of LEZs but my amendment 30 is intended to exempt historic vehicles from the rules around LEZs. A historic vehicle being defined as any vehicle constructed more than 30 years before 1 January in the year which it is driven within an LEZ and the second amendment 31 extends its provision to vehicles from other countries which meet the same criteria. I should say that I have a personal interest in historic vehicles as the owner of a classic car and a member of the Stag Owners Club. I am grateful to the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs for their assistance in drafting these amendments and making the arguments. I know that members have been energetically lobbying MSPs on this issue over the past few days. The FBHVC is an umbrella group which represents over 540 member clubs throughout the United Kingdom which have a total membership of over a quarter of a million historic vehicle owners and enthusiasts. Interest in historic vehicles sustains economic activity worth £5.5 billion annually to the UK economy and supporting the employment of nearly 35,000 people spread right across the country. Historic vehicles include cars, motorcycles, buses, coaches, lorries, vans, military vehicles, tractors and steam engines. Those vehicles are no longer used primarily if at all as a means of transportation but are preserved and in many cases have been restored for their historic interest. Their owners exhibit them at exhibitions that show community ffets and so on and those vehicles have to use the highways both in order to attend at these events but also to participate in tuning events and for general leisure purposes. Without an exemption from LEZs individuals living within an LEZ would not be able to own or operate a historic vehicle which would be, in my view, an unreasonable restriction. Moreover, it would mean that historic vehicles would no longer be able to drive through an LEZ which would mean that historical vehicle exhibitions, rallies and events could no longer be held at such venues. Those events are popular with the public and have a major economic benefit and I feel that it would be an unintended consequence of the introduction of LEZs if historic vehicles were excluded in this fashion. Two other brief examples, convener. One is around military vehicles. Today is the 75th anniversary of Dede. As part of that, we are seeing a parade of historic military vehicles down on the south coast. If we do not exempt historic vehicles from LEZs we will not be able to have parades of historic military vehicles down Princess Street and down other streets in the centres of our cities. The other example is wedding cars. People like turning up for their weddings in a historic Rolls Royce or Daimler bedecked with ribbons. If we do not exempt historic vehicles from LEZs it means that you will not be able to turn up for your wedding in a city centre, church or hotel or wedding venue in such style. That would be to the detriment of society as a whole and not what is intended by the legislation. It goes without saying that the great majority of historic vehicles, if not all, will not meet modern emission standards. It will never be the case that there will be higher pollution from a historic vehicle in an LEZ than from a more modern vehicle. We have to put that into perspective. Historic vehicles are seldom in regular use and tend to do a very low mileage, commonly no more than a few hundred miles per year. In total, historic vehicles represent just 0.2 per cent of total traffic on UK roads. I do not think that there is a credible argument that there is a substantial pollution problem likely to arise from exempting historic vehicles given how little they contribute to overall traffic. My amendment seeks to exclude all historic vehicles registered more than 30 years ago on a rolling basis. The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 describes historic vehicles as those at least 40 years old on a rolling basis. It is this definition, which is used by DVLA, and currently all vehicles more than 40 years old are exempt from road tax and annual MOT. However, the international definition of historic vehicles applies to those built more than 30 years ago. This is the definition recognised by UNESCO and FIVA, which is the international umbrella organisation for historic vehicle owners. Accordingly, in line with international practice, I believe that the 30-year cut-off point is the appropriate one. There is, convener, a precedent for what I am proposing here. The LEZs that exist in England, both the London ULEZ and the other zones being set up pursuant to DEFRA's clean air framework all exempt historic vehicles. In line with that, I believe that it would be appropriate for historic vehicles to be exempted from the LEZs to be established in Scotland. I hope that that is helpful, convener, and I am happy to answer any questions or respond to any points that members wish to make. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to speak to amendment 56 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I am aware that the issue of proposed LEZ exemptions is one where we have heard a lot of views over stage 1. There have been some interesting additions to that from members around the table this morning. Let me be clear. I absolutely accept that there will be vehicle-based exemptions in relation to LEZs. There are a range of circumstances where it would be right and proper that certain vehicles, for the purposes that they are being used for, would just justify an LEZ exemption. During Government evidence over stage 1, it was made clear that areas such as emergency services and blue badge holders were high up in our considerations. There have been some interesting proposals tabled today in relation to quite niche areas. For example, amendment 2, 3 and 3A relates to the transportation equipment for funfares. Amendment 1331 is concerned with historic vehicles, while amendment 221 relates to community bus services. Amendment 33 covers blue light services, service first responders, and amendment 34 concerns diplomatic vehicles. What is evident from such a wide variation of interests is that that all needs some careful thought and consideration in conjunction with interested parties with specialist knowledge in those areas. I don't think that it would be in our collective interests to arbitrarily extend exemptions to, in some areas, quite nuanced groups of vehicles at stage 2. My officials are presently undertaking an extensive amount of engagement in relation to proposed regulations on LEZ exemptions. We do not want to pre-empt that process. Stakeholders, I'm happy to take an intervention from Mr Lyle. I know under the bill, and this may be an answer to everyone's, including my proposal, a low-emission time-limited exemption. A low-emission zone scheme may provide for the granting and renew by the local authority that has made the scheme of a time-limited exemption in respect of a vehicle or type of vehicle for the purpose of section. Would the council or local council, where there is an LEZ, if approached by historic vehicles, community transport, the showman's guild, if there was a function on that day, could the local council grant an exemption for that particular time, day or extension of the fair, fun fair or a show of historic vehicles going down Princess Street? There is provision within the legislation that a local authority can suspend the provisions of an LEZ within that particular area that it covers for an event to take place. If it was a parade of historic military vehicles, they would be able to suspend it for the purposes of that. There is provision within the legislation to do that. However, as I mentioned, my officials have been undertaking extensive amount of work with the interested parties in this matter. There was a stakeholders workshop hosted by Transport Scotland on the topic of regulations, including the very issue of exemptions. That took place last month, and a detailed report on the findings of the workshop will be published shortly. That approach is helping us to gather a full picture from key interest groups and to properly test opinion in a considered forum. I am more than happy to update Parliament on how that is developing as we move towards stage 3, but we need to give this process some space to develop and to avoid taking forward the issue of exemptions on a piecemeal fashion. On the amendments not relating to vehicle type amendments 56 and 57, they have been lodged by the Government to address issues raised with us over stage 1. In the event of unavoidable road closures, which made overt traffic into an LEZ, it would not seem appropriate for a registered keeper of an uncomplaint vehicle to receive a penalty when they had no alternative but to enter the LEZ. Furthermore, amendment 56 allows local authorities to create time-limited exemptions for such a scenario. However, the amendment has been drafted to ensure that the exemption would only apply if the driver entered the LEZ following a signed diversion. The LEZ for cities consistency group comprises of representatives from Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is made known to my officials that it would not be desirable for the appeals process to be used for such a scenario. Its primary function should be kept for reviews or appeals in connection with the alleged erroneous issuing of a penalty charge notice. Therefore, we have acted on this matter. Amendment 57 is consequential to amendment 56 and allows local authorities to make time-limited exemptions for road closures to make those exemptions subject to conditions or restrictions. Amendment 203 also concerns time-limited exemptions. It aims to remove the one-year time limit for time-limited exemptions other than those for road closures, leaving this open-ended. I think that a time limit is appropriate here to make clear that such exemptions should not carry on indefinitely and to encourage fleet operators in particular who receive a time-limited exemption to still prepare for L.E.Z. compliance in the quickest time possible. I ask the committee to give way to Mr Greene. Thank you to the Government Secretary for taking my intervention. I am finding this extremely helpful and useful, but I think that it is related to the permanent exemptions and my amendment 203 in time-limited. Isn't the point that Mr Law was making that legislation already allows for exemptions to be made to cover specific events, either under time-limited exemption or in terms of suspension for an event, but the point of Mr Fraser's, Rachel Hamilton's and indeed my own amendments, and of course some of Mr Law's is to give permanent exemption to certain categories, not time-limited. By either removal of the cap on the time-limited exemption or by giving permanent exemption on the face of the bill, as is done on page 57 on parking prohibitions, where we do and the Government in its own bill specifies those groups of vehicles and is happy to do so in that section, but seems unhappy to do it in this section. I am a bit confused. Perhaps you could clarify the matter for me. I can see where your confusion is because the exemptions will be dealt with by regulation. The work that we are undertaking just now is to bring together all of the issues relating to exemptions so that they are based in regulation, which will be taken forward through our affirmative procedure, which Parliament will then have to approve, so we are doing it in a piecemeal fashion by introducing elements on to the face of the bill itself. The issue around local authorities being able to suspend the provisions around an LEZ is for the purpose of a major event that may be taking place that would involve bringing in vehicles that would not comply with the LEZ and that is to give local authorities some flexibility in that. However, what we do believe is that there should be a time limit on the length of time that they can suspend it for to ensure that it does not get suspended indefinitely. That is to address the very issue that I was just mentioning in my contribution. I hope that that has clarified the issue for the member. I ask the committee to support amendment 56 and 57 in my name, and I would ask Richard Lyle, Murdo Fraser, Jamie Greene and Rachel Hamilton not to press their amendment in this group, but if pressed, I would therefore urge the committee to reject them. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Now, there are a number of committee members who wish to come in on this. Could I remind committee members that it is very helpful to be succinct and to the point, which means that I then do not have to time limit the amount of time that they have to speak. Let us try that on a gentle way first of all. Stuart Stevenson followed by Colin Smyth. Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 221 from Rachel Hamilton in relation to community bus services. I absolutely share with her the desire to support community bus services to the best possible way we can and, indeed, on 15 March 2006, I had a member's debate on the subject, and it's worth just repeating some of the stats I used then that relate to Aberdeenshire, where 44 per cent of passengers have to wait more than 64 minutes for a bus, while another 15 per cent of passengers have to walk more than 14 minutes to a bus stop. Community bus is a very important part of rural transport infrastructure. However, I want to be quite clear that I think that people who use community bus services are as entitled as anyone else to use modern, efficient, comfortable transport. Indeed, community bus services, which on occasion will travel significant distances to go to events and cities and so on and so forth, should not be a way in which people are exposed to pollutants that may come from rather old vehicles. I just leave that statement of all while making the general point. Amendment 33 from Jamie Greene. I think that there's an omission from the list that he proposes, which I can perhaps explain. I would imagine that if you're going to have a list like this, you might include military vehicles because there will be occasions, albeit that I suspect that military vehicles will be covered by crown immunity and wouldn't necessarily require to be on such... Well, I'll come in a minute if I may. No, I will. I'll take it now, sorry. It's on that specific point. I appreciate the omission of military vehicles, which, as I referred to part 4 of the bill, is included, but wouldn't the member therefore agree that you have the ability between now and stage 3 to add a suitable vehicle type if it was deemed to be omitted from my amendment and by putting this wording in on the face of the bill as it is in another part of the bill, it will give members opportunity to amend or add as a see fit? Well, thank you for that. I've listened carefully to what the minister has to say about dealing with this through regulations and I think that that is a much more flexible way of dealing with lists in the generality if I will legislate, so I'm pretty much persuaded by that. Let me move on to Jamie Greene's amendment 34, diplomatic vehicles. It may be worth saying that under the diplomatic code, and I've read this off the United States Government website, diplomatic vehicles may be issued with traffic citations. In other words, they are not exempt from the laws and not only that, the diplomatic code makes it clear that the state can intervene for reasons of public safety and in relation to pollution, I think that there is hardly a more only present and regular threat to public safety than pollutants. So it would be entirely inappropriate to embed in primary legislation a specific exemption for diplomatic vehicles, which we expect to set an example to everyone in our community and behave and perform to the highest standards. So I would not under any circumstances support that now, Mr Fraser. I welcome his explanation of the 30 years because I was aware of the 40 years. Of course, for him personally, since the last triumph stag was manufactured in 1977 or some websites say 1978, they're all more than 40 years old either way. I didn't think the 30 years was proper. I wouldn't face the bill as any number because if we were to do it, I think that we should link it to something else. Where we are to support this amendment, I would prefer to see it linked to the exemption from vehicle excise duty so that when and if that changes, it carries with it changes on this. That's a drafting issue rather than anything else. Like others, I've been contacted by the Bon Accord Steam Engine Club of Aberdeen. Mr Stevenson. I absolutely understand this, but I'm just saying I understand you've got a lot to get through. I have a lot of people to get through. So if I can ask you to be succinct on each point, I would be grateful. You've had five minutes so far. I've spoken on four amendments so far. Five minutes on this section. Mr Stevenson, I'll let you continue, but I ask you to be brief. The point is well made on steam engines. Concluding on this amendment, I think that the one point that Murdo Fraser has made, which perhaps I haven't heard the answer to, is people who own a historic vehicle and live within emissions zones. I think that there is something to be dealt with there. The rest of what he says can be sensibly dealt with elsewhere. That's it, convener. Good, thank you. Colin, followed by John Mason. For the purposes of simplicity and effectiveness of leases, I think that exemptions should, and the point of principle, be kept to a minimum. I'm also, I have to say, uncomfortable with the idea of the bill permanently exempting any type of vehicle. This legislation is expected to be in place for the foreseeable future, and most, although I appreciate not all of the vehicles being suggested for exemptions here, I think that the principle of being LEZ compliant eventually, even if they do face particular challenges in the short term. I have to say that I do accept, however, that the exemptions that are being proposed do have merit, but ministers already have the power to regulate to exempt vehicles or types of vehicles. In many ways, I think, maybe secondary legislation may be the more appropriate place to put these exemptions so they can be revoked if they do become unnecessary, not least because we should be trying to support people to allow them to upgrade their vehicles rather than exempting them. In terms of amendments 13 and 31 on the specific issue of classic vehicles, I do appreciate that there is a unique challenge here in that replacing or upgrading these cars or vehicles is not an option in the same way as it may be in other instances. I wonder whether, as the cabinet secretary says, the way forward is to have something targeted in regulations to allow classic vehicles to be driven, for example, for specific purposes such as a classic car show or an exemption and regulation for a resident, for example, with an LEZ and a classic vehicle within an LEZ. I would make the general point that regulation is the best way forward when it comes to those exemptions and we should not be putting those exemptions in the face of the bill. John Mason, followed by Mike Rumbles. I think that the cabinet secretary's comments have been helpful and clarified things a bit for me. I feel that there are too many issues here. One is that there should be exemptions for some vehicles all of the time, which is what Murdo Fraser is arguing for, and the whole question of time-limited events, which is covered in section 12 of the bill. I have a specific interest in my constituency in having a bus museum, and they would consider 20 years to be when a bus becomes a vintage bus, so they would argue with the 30-year line that has been taken by Murdo Fraser. I am happy to accept that it would not be 20 years for every vehicle, but it would be 20 for some. I think that that brings me to feel that, yes, we do not want, as has just been said, all of these details in the face of the bill, whether we need some reference in the face of the bill to that kind of exemption, because there is the very specific section 12 about time-limited exemptions, but I do not think that there is an equivalent for certain types of vehicle, albeit that would be in regulations. I think that we need to remember as well that those low-emission zones are intended to be quite tight in small areas, and I would have thought that some of Murdo Fraser's arguments about a vehicle having to travel through Glasgow, would not have to go through the LEZ to be able to go through Glasgow. I think that that is an issue, and also that the likelihood of somebody living in the small LEZ in Glasgow and having a vintage vehicle as well is pretty unlikely, but I am not saying that it is absolutely impossible. I wonder if Mr Mason could reflect on the point that I made about wedding cars. Do you not think that it would be unfortunate if someone wanted to get married at a city centre church in Glasgow to have to rock up in a modern car as opposed to a vintage Rolls Royce? That brings up my final point, which is how cumbersome the council system of a time-limited exemption would be if it is quite straightforward and could easily cover Mr Fraser's example and mine of a bus going into the city centre to pick up passengers to take to the museum, say, 15 times a year at the most. Often, those are run by volunteers or small businesses, so I would hope that any system that the council has put in place would be a fairly simple system. Thank you. John, Mike Rumbles. Thank you, convener. My first contribution this morning. We have a climate emergency. I am surprised. We haven't flagged that up, and that's partly why we're looking at low-emission zones. As a matter of course, I'm not in favour of general exemptions to this. The whole point is that where you are able to, and I'll come to Murdo's amendments in a minute, where you are able to move to low-emission vehicles, then there's the whole point of a low-emission zone. So when you exempt vehicles from that, that causes a problem. However, I'm looking at amendments 56 and 57 from the Government, and it seems to me a very sensible situation where if someone has no intention of going into the low-emission zone area and are now forced into it, then it seems eminently sensible that we have a situation where they are not breaking the law, because that's what we're talking about. Unlike London where there's a charge, we have decided in Scotland to go down the route of where this is not a charge, this is the law. So that, to me, is very sensible, 56 and 57. I have to say that I'm not a fan, unlike Colin Smyth of Government Regulations. I think that it's our job as MSPs to, when we're looking at primary legislation, to get it right. So I am well aware that the minister will have the opportunity under the law in section 1, 4, B. The Scottish Minister is made by regulations to specify vehicles or types of vehicles that are exempt. So the minister is going to have that power. The problem with regulations, when it comes before us, we can't amend them. So we can amend primary legislation, which is before us. So I understand why Murdo Fraser has brought the particular amendments on classic cars. I'll hold my hands up. I used to have a classic car. I don't anymore, so I'm not... I don't have an interest in that regard. I'm peculiarly interested in that regard. But I do understand, I mean, classic cars can't change the classic car for the lower emission zone. So there is an issue here. But what I'm worried about is an issue of process. I would like to address this in stage 1 of the committee's proceedings. We didn't do it because that wasn't made, brought to our attention in stage 1. I think that really we've missed a trick in not examining this in detail. So we're being asked to vote on Murdo Fraser's amendments, having not taken evidence, having not examined the situation. I think that there is a case to be made for this at stage 3 on the face of the bill, and I would urge Murdo Fraser to have discussions with the Cabinet Secretary on this issue of classic cars, because it is an issue. I would hope that, apart from the Government's amendments of 56 and 57, all the other amendments would not be pressed so that we can have a look at this in better detail at stage 3. I will certainly support amendments 56 and 57. I'm not going to support the other amendments. I'm reserving our position on classic cars, because I think that there is something about this that we need to examine further. Thank you, Mike. Peter Chapman. Thanks, convener. I will be very brief. I'm also a collector and owner of classic cars, and I therefore support Murdo Fraser's amendments 31 to exempt classic cars from Ellie Zed's. Since he's made the case very well, I would only add that classic car rallies are a great cultural event, and it is important that we do not ban them from our towns and cities. We must remember as well that these classic cars do very small millages on an annual basis. I also support amendments by my colleagues, Rachel Hammondley and Jamie Greene. I will stop there, convener. Thank you, Peter. Rachel Hamilton, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. Whilst I accept the Cabinet Secretary's wish to deal with the exemptions through regulation, I do not accept the Cabinet Secretary's comment that community transport is a niche area. Community bus operators are not well placed to embrace technology and offer an integral service to vulnerable individuals in local communities and those living in social isolation. There will be an opportunity, of course, for members to add to my amendment at stage 3, and I press my amendment in my name. Thank you. The question that I'm going to ask is that amendment 221 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed that there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against? Thank you. The result of that vote is there are four votes and three moisture-newy votes and seven votes against. Therefore, the amendment is not carried. I thereforeable call amendment 33 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 221. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I therefore cool amendment 34 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 221. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move. I therefore call amendment 2 Am� complexwyr i'w ddaeth iawn i'w ddylu i'r combiwn iall croibwyr frydd Gwbod? Gweithi'r maenظwr wedi ffordd amion ar Gwbod cyn llmerogol ar lifted. Merigodd pa'r materiail yn byegfafon torque entrument am visiol. Mae fforddau agmaint, yr hyn os y bwysig. Rhai i gael. Dwi'r wnaeth genodd yn cyfriad. Mertho niechyd o'r hanfod o'r fathau. Rhai i chi, eu cyfriad. Rhaid i chi ei gael arneud y ddefnyddio gael y fathau. Mae'r adnod o brifio sydd wedi meddwl i gwneud arniwg. Mae'r adnod o brifio arniwg wedi gofyn hwnnw, felly mae genodd yn rhai i chi wedi'i wneud ei gael y fathau. F�ol, mae'n ddweud beth sy'n amser gyda'r amser. Trefwyr yn meddwl o'r srach Maeidio strategies yn dyn nhw ddod i'r namr ffraser gweithio burning o ar gweithio meddedig nhw ddod i 21-21. Rwy'n ei ddweud o'r srach meddedig. Stefwyr yn meddwl o'r srach meddedig nhw ddod i 21-21. Rwy'n meddwl o'r srach meddedig nhw'n meddwl o'r srach meddedig nhw ddod i 21-21. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 31 in the name of Mord of Fraser, already debated with amendment 221. Mord of Fraser to move or not move? Not move, comere. Thank you. We're now going to move on to penalty charges payable, and I therefore call in low mission zones. I call amendment 185 in the name of John Finne, group with amendments 186, 187, 188, 199, 200 and 202. I would like to point out F 색�odd, y mae ei spesio, yn g каждыйdd yn elu... Y compliad Medicine nhw hisffer. Rwyf, είναιch fel yna khôngbeithg师io hefyd yn ddatgyrch yn g repliedig yn dderiad opinions sy'n ddad 강wrs Aber oss yn ddiwedd yn awdDis Hyly Ones. Dwychwil Cymru Fel T decyddiad Cymru, Rwyfyrr Morlyוטabell, Byellion. Fydd y Adlwnod. Felly mae'n mynd i fych sy'n ei cyddydd yn gwed UM1 y samhau. it is right up front in the transport bin where part 1, chapter 1, section 1, and it is about the penalty charges. My proposal is, as things stand, at the moment the charges want only one and I quote here, only one penalty charges PえーBUL in respect of contributions. My proposal is to move that back to 3 per day. Members will be aware there are 40,000 deaths UK direct attributed to poor air quality each year. The British Long Foundation, I think, have shared briefings widely with members and they have expressed concerns about multiple contraventions and I think that people would understand that. I am very keen to hear what the Scottish Government has to say in respect of that. I anticipate that they may talk about the potential for secondary legislation covering this matter, but I am keen to hear that. There are other amendments in this group. I will briefly talk about Jamie Greene's 1861-187. I will not be supportive of those. I am keen to hear what Peter Chapman says about the data on vehicles and on the side thereafter. I will leave it at that, thank you, convener. Thank you, Ms Finlay. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to speak to amendment 186 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Let me briefly explain. I think that there are two different sections of amendments, the first one for preemption and maybe if I explain my approach it might help members to understand why I have taken this approach. When I spoke to the legislation team and I should put on record my huge thanks to them, they have been extremely helpful for this process. Navigating these bills is complex and difficult for members and their staff. For this reason, I have taken two approaches with 186, 187 and 188. This is in relation to the benefit members on page 2 of the bill on the Scottish ministers made by regulations. Subsection 4C says that it is helpful to read it, make provision for and in connection with the amount that may be imposed as a penalty charge under subsection 2, which may include provision for discounts and surcharges. 186 proposes simply to remove 4C in its entirety, the reason being that it was my view that ministers should not dictate the amount of the penalty charges and that would be best placed to give local authorities that power. That is the approach that 186 takes. The approach that 187 and 188 takes, however, is different. I begin to hear members' thoughts on this. 187 gives ministers the power to set a maximum penalty charge, but not specify a range or a minimum. The reason for that is that it seems sensible for Government to specify the top end of what a charge could be to ensure that there is some form of consistency and fairness right across Scotland, regardless of where you live. In my view, it was local authorities that should determine the penalty that best meets the needs for their city and their zone. 188 removes the minister's ability to determine discounts and surcharge levels, in line with my theory that the Government's intervention on the amount of fines, discounts and surcharges should again be down to the local authority running the scheme and not central government. The reason for that is because what is right for Dundee to charge me may not necessarily be right for Edinburgh to charge. The reason, however, I would like a national cap on the amount charged is to ensure that any one individual local authority is not able to introduce overly exuberant fines that could range in the hundreds of pounds per day. We simply do not know at this stage. That is the rationale between those two approaches. 1.99 and 2.00 are very similar. 2.00 would reflect the passing of amendment 187 around the maximum charge, so it is technically different from 1.99. I will take a view on which one to move in that respect. In effect, it says that when setting up a zone in section 9, which lists what local authorities should detail when setting up a zone, including the geographic area of a zone, which roads it will operate on, the date in which it will come into effect, the objectives and so on, I have added the amount that has to be imposed as a penalty charge. It does not specify what that amount should be on the face of the bill. I think that it is entirely correct not to do so, but it does state that the required content of a scheme should include at the outset when a local authority comes to ministers to request a scheme that those local authorities detail what the penalty charges that they propose will be as part of the setting up of that scheme. It seems a sensible thing to request them to do. Amendment 202, which is also in this group, I will briefly speak to you. As the bill currently stands, individuals are responsible for meeting the costs of a penalty charge. This amendment technically allows other methods of payment. It would, for example, allow a company or organisation to set up an arrangement where they pay the charge on behalf of their employees, for example. To give some examples to this, which may be helpful to the committee, an NHS board, for example, may choose to enter into an arrangement with the local authority who operates the scheme to meet the costs of individual drivers, for example doctors or nurses, who travel into a zone. Similarly, a local authority might use a range of contractors to provide services such as is common, outsourced waste collection, and part of that commercial agreement between those parties may be that the costs of non-compliant vehicles entering a zone may be met by the local authority or any other body, and that would allow them to do so, whereas, at the moment, the bill puts the onus on the driver personally. That is an interesting principle. I wonder if Mr Greene has reflected whether that could apply to other criteria that are covered by the law. For instance, the workplace parking levy, would you be bringing forward an amendment of that nature in respect of that? I think that when we get to that stage of the bill, I would be very happy to have that debate with Mr Finnie, but at the moment I am talking about low-emission zones. I think that this is a sensible and helpful suggestion to allow organisations to enter into an agreement with the local authority who operates a zone. Similar measures have actually been brought in in other congestion zones, where, for example, companies have set up direct debits to meet the costs or other forms of more simple payment. The amendment does not mandate local authorities to set up bulk payment schemes in any way, shape or form, but it does give them the power to do so if they choose to do so, and I would be keen to hear the minister's thoughts on that amendment. I have got Mike Rumbles. I think that John Finnie's amendment at 185 is too harsh. I think that people can enter a zone inadvertently. If they enter it once and be charged for that day, that should be sufficient. I am not convinced that moving it to three will have any effect on changing behaviour, which is what we are talking about. I am grateful for the member taking an intervention. Does the member think that someone would enter a zone inadvertently three times a day? I can only speak from personal experience, and I will say yes, because I have been abroad where I have inadvertently entered a zone where I shouldn't have been. I knew it if I had known. We can have drivers who make mistakes inadvertently, and we have to legislate and be aware of that. I have pulled my own hands up to that from driving abroad. I hope that the answer is just... I am not on that, I am not. Go on. It is simply to state that I will have a further amendment coming out, which will no doubt debate in due course, which is around signage. We will produce very clear and standardised signage for entering zones, so that drivers such as Mr Rumbles will be acutely aware that they are entering a zone. Can I continue? Yes, you may continue. Thank you very much and for that helpful intervention, Jamie. The point is that I am about making sure that the whole point about this is to change behaviour, and I do not think that there is any help for charging somebody up to three times for the same offence. Secondly, I do think that Jamie in his amendments misses the point about this. This is not a charge where some organisation can take or will pay the charge. It is a penalty. It is to prevent... It is a whole approach. The Government's whole approach to this is about changing behaviour. It is not the fact that you can just pay the money and do it. It is meant to be a penalty. From that perspective, I am unlikely, unless the minister in his contribution convinces me otherwise, and I am likely to vote against all of those if they are pressed. Thank you. Richard Lyle? I agree with Jamie Rumbles. I remember when I used to work in Glasgow, the City Council changed roads quite a number of times and inadvertently you went into places that you should not have went in and had to pay the cost of it. I believe that charging someone three in, with the greatest respect to Jamie Greene, sometimes you can... If you are looking at road and driving correctly, sometimes you can miss a sign and it does happen. I agree with Mike Rumbles. I think that one charge is enough. Now the members want to seek forgiveness for previous crimes. We will move to the cabinet secretary. The group of amendments addresses the penalty charge payable when the registered keeper of a vehicle is in contravention of a low-emission zone. Amendment 185 increases a number of times in one day an individual can be charged for driving within a low-emission zone in an on-compliant vehicle from 1 to 3. It would appear that the intention behind this amendment is to further incentivise individuals not to be in contravention of an LEZ. It is correct that there must be sufficiently stringent penalty to encourage behaviour change. However, a balance must be struck by having an incentive that is practical and technically deliverable. Issuing multiple penalties per day in the same LEZ to the same registered keeper would require the LEZ operator to prove that a vehicle had left an LEZ and re-entered at a later time in the same day. Having consulted with stakeholders, Government has opted to set the bar at a maximum of one penalty charge per day. Amendment 186 and 119 have the effect that local authorities decide the penalty charge amount for their low-emission zone scheme and remove the powers for Scottish ministers to set nationally consistent penalty amounts in regulations. Amendment 187, 188 and 200, by contrast, have the effect of retaining the Scottish minister's ability to set the penalty charge but provide that the ministers are only setting the maximum charge. Ministers would have no power to set discounts and surcharges. Local authorities would have the power to specify the penalty charge, including any discounts and surcharges, but subject to the maximum charge set by ministers. Neither of those options are advisable, as it is important to ensure that there is consistency in the penalty rates and surcharges set across all LEZ schemes. The issue around consistency is arguably one of the red-line issues that stakeholders have called for. For this reason, I suggest that it is sensible to have a standard amount that correlates to current civic penalty amounts and for the Government to be able to set consistent surcharge rates so that individuals across Scotland have certainty and consistency in understanding how they will be penalised for contravention. Happy to give way. I appreciate the time taken from intervention. Is the current sector there for confirming that any emissions zone that is set up in Scotland is that the Government will set the penalty charges, discounts and surcharges, and local authorities will have no ability to amend, review, change, lower and increase those amounts. In other words, it is the Government that will set the charges and not the local authority that operates the scheme. It is a nationally set penalty charge in the same way that it is for penalty charges for road traffic offences, which are set at a national level, so that we have consistency of approach. If you face a penalty charge in Aberdeen, it will be the same penalty charge that you will also face in Glasgow for contravention, because the key issue that has been raised consistently by stakeholders is consistency of approach. That is why we are taking an approach that allows ministers to set the penalty at a national level. Amendment 202 would allow local authorities to make arrangements with employers so as to exclude drivers from being charged a penalty for driving a non-compliant vehicle into an LEZ in the course of their employment. The Government agrees with this principle, but the amendment is unnecessary because the bill already would allow for this. Section 24 prescribes that the penalty charge for entering an LEZ in a non-compliant vehicle is payable by the registered keeper of the vehicle. If an individual enters an LEZ in a non-compliant vehicle in the course of their employment, then the registered owner is likely to be the employer. That means that the employer is liable to pay the charge, not the employee. In the instance that an employee enters an LEZ in the course of their employment in a non-compliant vehicle that is registered to them, it would also be exempt from paying the charge by virtue of the regulation-making powers in section 24b of the bill. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 185, 186, 187, 188, 199, 200 and 202. I would ask John Finnie not to press amendment 185 and 186, 187, 188, 199, 200 and 202, but, if they are pressed, I would therefore urge a committee to reject them. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary for his comments, and I appreciate his considerable number of amendments to comment on them. His brief comment to mine, I am sure, was not intended in any way to be dismissive of the British Lung Foundation's considerable concerns about that. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would be agreeable to a meeting with either himself or his officials to specifically address the concerns about multiple use that the British Lung Foundation has raised. If that were the case, I certainly would not be inclined to move the amendment. I put in that engagement with the member. Okay, thank you very much. I won't press the amendment, thank you. Okay, so the question, therefore, is John Finnie wishes to withdraw amendment 185? Does any member object? No, there are no objections, therefore the amendment is withdrawn. I'm now going to move on to a section on the identification of weather vehicle meets specified emission standards within LEZ, and I'm calling amendment 28 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 222, 41, 42 and 29. Graham Simpson, can I ask you to move amendment 28 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please? Well, thanks very much, convener. This is a mercifully small group to deal with. My amendment, which I'll start with, was a couple actually, but the main one is 28, 29, is a consequence of 28. It's quite straightforward. I don't need to talk for very long about this. As people have put their car ownerships on the table, I currently own a 13-year-old diesel car. I don't intend to hang on to it for too much longer, but when I saw the bill, it struck me that if I or anyone who owns a similar vehicle had work done to that vehicle, had it modified so that it could comply with the restrictions in one of those zones, then I would want that to be picked up quickly. If I had worked on one day and I drove into a zone, the next week, I wouldn't want to be getting fined. The purpose behind the amendment was very simple and that we need to have a system, whatever it is. I've said that it should be done by regulation that that kind of situation should be picked up. If you have worked on a vehicle, there needs to be a system where that's recognised and that any low-emission zone in Scotland would know that your vehicle had had work done to it and therefore complied. Looking at the amendments from Peter Chapman and the Cabinet Secretary, I think that they're pretty similar. I think that they're going down the same vein. I think that they're complementary, but I remain to be persuaded that Mr Chapman or the Cabinet Secretary may persuade me that I don't need to press mine and that there's actually achieved the same things. Thank you. Okay, but on the outset, you're going to have to press your amendment and I don't think that you said that you were pressing it. I will press it. Sorry, move it. I'll move it. Not press it, moved it. Thank you. Peter Chapman, can I ask you to speak to amendment 222 and all the other amendments in the group, please? Okay, convener, and I will move my amendment. Don't do it yet. Okay. My amendment number 222, I think that I echo the sentiments made by my colleague Graham Simpson and will support his amendments if he pushes them. The onus must lie with the Scottish Government to identify which cars meet the required LEZ standards and not motorists or manufacturers, which is basically what he was saying. In my amendment 222 goes a little bit further in this principle by ensuring that there's a national data set to identify which vehicles can and can't enter an LEZ. Now, just as the DVLA holds data sets for motorists to view different classifications of vehicles, there should, I would argue, be a data set for every motorist to check if their vehicle is up to requirements. Now, this would be extremely beneficial in preventing confusion and penalties to drivers, as they simply don't know which category their vehicle is in. Now, I think that most cars will be simple to categorise, but there must also be a method to identify cars that have been modified so that they now meet the LEZ requirements, and that's what I would suggest we should have a data set doing precisely that. I would also say that I also support the cabinet secretary's amendments in this grouping, which are technical and strength to the certification of vehicles meeting LEZ standards. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 41 and the other amendments in the great cabinet secretary. Convener, amendment 28 and 29 essentially duplicate powers already outlined in the bill. The legislation already has provision for regulations identifying whether vehicles meet emissions standards. Therefore, those do not seem to offer anything additional and appear unnecessary. Amendment 222 requires Scottish ministers when making regulations under section 14b to include provision about national data set, which can be used to identify vehicle exemptions. The outcomes sought by amendment 222 are sensible, but the bill already makes provision for such actions to be delivered by allowing for the possibility for local authorities to contract out part of their function to LEZ operators. I'll give way to Mr Simpson. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could point out the section of the bill that he referred to earlier, which covers my amendment. The provisions within the data sets that I've just made reference to, which is the making regulations under 14b, the way in which you made a specific reference to the idea of a car being gone through a retrofit process. If it goes through a retrofit process, that needs to be notified to DVSA. That data set is used by those who are operating the LEZs for confirming whether cars comply with it or not. The data sets that are used by DVLA and DVSA will be used by those who are operating LEZs, which covers the very point that the member was seeking to cover through his amendment. For LEZs to work properly, convener, in Scotland, the LEZ enforcement regime will utilise data sets to identify exempt vehicles in order to deliver the purpose in section 11b. The data sets on exempt vehicles will be regularly updated, adapted and supplemented by other data sets or systems as applicable to permit the identification of exempt vehicles. Amendment 41 and 42 help to address issues that have come to the force since the bill's introduction. They will help to future-proof the legislation on LEZs to allow for situations whereby vehicle record data sets may change or new ones emerge and are used in the detection and enforcement scheme. Also, they will help to ensure that the detection scheme used in Scotland is flexible, in particular to take account of vehicle retrofitting, which means that it is important to enforce against emissions at the date and time of detection rather than the emission performance when the vehicle was originally manufactured, which addresses the very point that Mr Simpson was seeking to address through his amendment. Amendment 41 is principally aimed at addressing gaps in records where no information is or will be held by DVLA or DVSA on the emission standard of a particular vehicle. That equates to records of future vehicle emission standards for vehicles that are different or more stringent than the current EU standard, and records of the emission standards for foreign vehicles. Finally, in relation to the application of so-called real-world emission standards, where a record of a vehicle's emission standards at the time of the contravention of the LEZ could help to show if the vehicle's emission standards were degraded below the standard with which it was registered. Amendment 42 ensures that, if a vehicle has been retrofitted and the emission standards at the time of registration has changed, then the detection procedure will be flexible enough to be able to take account of that. In such an instance, the vehicle's registered keeper will have to ensure that the designation is designated in such a way with DVSA. We understand that the agency intends to accept certificates currently produced by the Clean Vehicle Retrofit Certification System, run by the Energy Saving Trust in this regard. Therefore, the amendment allows us for such back-office functions and for the emissions at the date and time of detection to be those that are pursued. Therefore, I ask the committee to support amendments 41 and 42 in my name, and I ask Peter Chapman not to press amendment 222 and Graham Simpson not to press amendment 28 and 29, if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. Amendment 28 is not constructed to meet its requirement because it uses the word manufactured. The definition of manufacture is to make something on a large scale using machinery. Therefore, it excludes home-built vehicles from the definition. The vehicles that traditionally had a year letter of Q meant that the year was indeterminate, because often they were from parts of many different vehicles. On technical grounds, it is not a well-constructed amendment. Similarly, for Peter Chapman's 222, I am a bit uncertain about paragraph B, national data set or other system, just what that ends up meaning, whether that is private data sets. I would encourage the Government to seek to be able to do is to have the information recorded by the DVSA if that is possible, because they already record the emissions that come from vehicles, and that determines what the DVLA does in terms of the tax that is paid annually. In the case of my little hybrid car, I pay £10 a year. I know that other colleagues with large landrovers pay considerably more because the database says that their emissions are greater. I hope that we would piggyback on the back of that, rather than setting up something that is disjoint and independent. I think that it is an interesting chain of conversation. I think that the points that Mr Simpson and Mr Chapman are trying to make are that the bill talks in great detail about approved devices and how the information is captured in terms of, presumably, number plate recognition. However, I think that what we have not spent any time really discussing is what is at the back end of all that and what are those connected to. I think that what the discussion is raising is seeking some clarity over whether local authorities will hold the data sets or the back end data that approved devices is linked to to do that immediately, of checking whether a vehicle that is being captured on entering a zone is compliant or non-compliant with entry, and whether or not that data set is held nationally, provided nationally, or indeed is set to some national standard, and whether or not it is able to be amended by either adding layers of other data sets, for example exemption layers, or indeed, as Mr Simpson is alluding to, whether or not it will capture changes or modifications to vehicles to have made them compliant. The problem that we have is that amendment 42 and 41, although helpful, do not really clarify the issue as to whether or not there will be any standardised back end data and whether all local authorities will use the same source of data or whether they will have to produce it themselves. That is what these amendments are trying to elicit from the Government. If they are not moved, I am hoping that that is something that the Government may reflect on and confirm to us before stage 3. Thank you, Jeremy. Graham Simpson, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Yes, thanks, convener. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary had to say, and, indeed, Mr Stevenson, as well. However, if I take the cabinet secretary's opinion of the bill and his opinion, I am not sure that having read the relevant section of the bill that it captures what I am trying to achieve in amendment 28, which is very simply if you have your car modified so that it can go into one of those zones, there needs to be a system that can react quickly to that so that people are not getting wrongly fined. The cabinet secretary is looking puzzled by that, but I do not really know why, because it is quite simple. If I take my car into a garage, get some work done to it so that it will meet those regulations, I do not want to be hit with a fine the very next week, yes? I would accept that the DVLA does update its records relatively quickly. I can accept that, but what I would want as a driver is the certainty that there is a system from garage to DVLA to council. Mr Stevenson can wave his phone about as much as he likes, but this... Hold on, hold on, hold on, please. No, no, cabinet secretary, just two seconds. Can I just say that just in situations like this where everyone wants to respond to Mr Simpson's comment, could you actually ask a member and then look to me, I will call you in when there's three of you doing it at the same time. But it's up to Mr Simpson to say whether he wants to give way. So, Mr Simpson, do you want to give way to the cabinet secretary? I don't wish to give way because I'm not actually going to press the amendment, because I think the cabinet secretary's amendments, I think, having heard his amendments, now bear in mind he thought his bill was in good condition, his amendments to that, I think, cover what I'm trying to achieve, so I won't be pressing it. Thank you. Therefore, as Graham Simpson wishes to withdraw amendment 28, does any member object? Okay, therefore the amendment is withdrawn. I therefore call amendment 186 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 185. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? It's always good to listen to what the convener is saying, not other people around the table. I'm calling amendment 186 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 185. Jamie Greene, would you move or not move it please? Not moved. Therefore I call amendment 187 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 185. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment 188 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 185. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved, convener. Okay, the call amendment 222 in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 28. Peter Chapman, to move or not move? I amり wrth health. The question, therefore, at this stage, is section 1b agreed? Are we all agreed? I will call Amendment 41 in the name of the Cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 28. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Please call amendment 40. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 42 in the name of the Cabinet except already debated with amendment 28. Cabinet Secretary to move or not move. Moved? The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question now at the stage is that section 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question now is section 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is the perfect moment to stop. I am going to suspend the committee meeting until 20 past 11. I would ask committee members and members, the cabinet secretary, to be back in their seats by then to resume. Therefore, I am temporarily suspended in the meeting. I am now going to reconvene the meeting of the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee considering the Transport Scotland Bill. We are now going to look at the duty to make a scheme where certain ad quality is reached and this is for low emission zones. Therefore, I am going to call amendment 43 in the name of Colin Smyth on a group on its own. Colin Smyth to move and speak to amendment 43, please. Thank you, convener. I am happy to move amendment 43 in my name, which requires local authorities with illegal levels of air pollution to introduce a low emission zone and less exempted by Minister Simply Put. This was drafted to make clear that when air pollution breaches legal levels, local authorities should be required to address this. Accountability for illegal air pollution largely lies with the UK Government. However, many of the solutions are at a local level. There should be a clear duty, in my view, on local authorities to deal with illegal air pollution in their area. Of the mechanisms that are currently available to local authorities or those that are expected to be made available through this bill, LEZs are widely considered to be the most effective way of reducing air pollution. I believe that that is the correct approach. However, that is not absolute. I have included in the option of a ministerial exemption. For example, if the breach in air pollution was clearly an anomaly or the local authority were able to illustrate how it is otherwise dealing with the issue, Scottish ministers would have the power to waive the requirement in my amendment. The introduction of LEZs in this section of the bill is an important step forward, but their use should not be optional where air pollution levels reach illegal levels, posing a serious threat to health. I think that amendment clarifies it, which I am happy to move. Thank you, convener. I am puzzled by Colin's amendment 43. The bill is an enabling bill allowing local authorities to do this and puts the initiative on local authorities. In Colin's amendment 43, part 3, it says that, at a certain level, a local authority must do this. In section 4, we have an appearance of regulations again, allowing the Scottish Government to ignore that. I do not really understand the entire purpose of this amendment, because it is saying that, on the one hand, it must, and then, on the other hand, the Scottish Government must not. Oh, it does not have to. I really do not think that amendment 43 does what Colin wants it to do. Thank you, Mike. John Finnie John. I think that legislation can be very challenging. It is certainly challenging, given all the papers that we have here to scrutinise and make good law, because that is what we are here to do. I think that one of the challenges that the public face is that a lot of them are blissfully unaware that they live in areas where there are damaging levels of air pollution. It is incumbent on the Government to protect its population, whereas Colin is right to say that some matters are reserved to the UK Government. I am very supportive of that provision. Having assessed a risk and established that there is a danger to the public, then it is incumbent on the public sector to put in place measures to ameliorate that risk. One of those measures is a low emission zone, and I support this amendment. Thank you, John. Jamie Greene, Jamie. Can I just clarify if perhaps Mr Smith can confirm it or not and sum it up? Is the effect of this amendment simply that if air pollution levels fall below the standard that is specified and that he has chosen the air quality standards regulation, other bits of the bill refer to other pieces of legislation that I had some amendments that refer to different regulations? I think that the problem here is that we are tying it to very specific regulation, which may change in the future, subject to the affirmative procedure. In effect, if the air quality is deemed to be unfit for people in that zone, the local authority in which that measure is taken must introduce a low emission zone. We think that low emission zones are primarily related to cities, rightfully so, where the majority of vehicles and traffic pollution is, but in effect that could be any local authority, including some of the local authorities in his own region. That would in effect force them to set up a zone perhaps even against it as well. I appreciate the sentiment of this automatic trigger of which he is trying to introduce, but I do have some nervousness that that would mean that local authorities would have to set up a zone even if it was not the right thing for them to do. Peter Chapman. I echo both of what Mike Rumbles and Jamie Greene have said. Mike Rumbles made the point that at one point it says that a local authority must, and at the other point it says that they do not have to. It is very confusing in that respect. I also reflect on what Jamie Greene has said, that that could force a local authority in any area. L-E-Zs, as I understand them, are targeted at the four-men cities. That could open it up to any town, anywhere, and I think that that would be a step too far at this stage. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary. Convener, amendment 43 would introduce a requirement on local authorities to implement an L-E-Z in an area that does not meet the air pollution limit values that I set out in the air quality standards Scotland regulations 2010. Those regulations refer to air quality targets derived from European directives. It is important because L-E-Zs in Scotland are being driven primarily by the need to address air pollution hotspots, as defined by the air quality Scotland regulations 2000, and not the European target outlined in the air quality standards Scotland regulations 2010, as mentioned in amendment 43. The Scottish Government has already given a commitment to introducing L-E-Zs into air quality management areas, identified under existing environmental legislation by 2023, where the national low emission framework appraisals support this particular approach. Those appraisals will be conducted this year for all air quality management areas other than the four main cities where L-E-Zs are already being prepared. That process will identify if an L-E-Z is required for other air quality management areas. It is important to consider carefully the appraisals and ensure that there is scientific merit in introducing further L-E-Zs as required. Introducing the amendment as a mandatory requirement is too prescriptive at this stage, and the Scottish Government cannot support doing so before the appraisal takes place, but it is acknowledged that L-E-Zs are a useful tool in improving air quality. Therefore, we can now ask Colin Smyth not to press this amendment, however, if he does so, it is for the committee to reject it. I think that, in fairness, John Smyth had said that he had finished at that stage. If it is a brief one—John, you have got to be conscious that—and I just made this comment—I am desperately trying to get through allowing everyone the chance to speak. You have spoken, so I will let you come back in, but it is not something that I am going to do generally once you have already spoken, John. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary has time frame for that assessment process, please. It starts this year. Should the appraisal process be completed over the course of this financial year, it should be completed. I am going to call on Colin Smyth to wind up and press all withdrawals of amendment. Thank you, convener. I think that there are two particular points raised. First of all, Mike Rumbles has queered how you can have an amendment that says that a local authority must do something. However, there may be exemptions—well, there are quite a few examples of that, I have to say—and I am very clear in the amendment how those exemptions should work. The example is that, if a local authority can show that other action other than an LEZ is being taken to reduce levels of air pollution, then that is one way that they could be exempt from imposing an LEZ because they have an alternative process in place to reduce air pollution. It is perfectly reasonable and sensible that there should be an exemption along those grounds. The issue is making sure that action is being taken to tackle the issue of illegal air pollution. The other point that was raised by Jamie Greene and Peter Chapman was that this might result in LEZs being introduced in other areas other than the ones that we already are aware of. If there are legal levels of air pollution anywhere, then, frankly, we should be taking action to tackle that problem. We should not simply say that because we have a list of towns—I am sort of happy to take an intervention yet. I certainly agree with Colin Smyth. There are other areas, not just cities. There are towns that people have concerns. In fact, if you go to, in particular, a model sitting outside the Civic Centre model, there is an air pollution monitoring, and the air pollution around the area can sometimes be higher than what it should be. I ask Colin Smyth not to press to have discussions with the cabinet secretary in order to see what can be done in order for his amendment to be supported. I will certainly come to that point in a second, but I think that Richard Lyle makes a very valid point. There are other areas where there are levels of air pollution, although, to be very clear, there is no safe level of air pollution, but there are areas where there are exceptionally high levels of air pollution that action needs to be required. In those areas, it would not be a case of imposing an LEZ on the local authority if it had set out clearly what action it was taking to tackle those levels of air pollution. I am very grateful for the member. I really must ask members if they want to make points during the thing. Please to make them during the time that they speak. If we continue to get interventions right the way through as a winding up, the problem is that we will never get to the end of this. I am going to ask for some discipline. Colin, I would ask you to move on, and if you want to take— Can I say, if there are merging points, it is appropriate that they are addressed. We are here to scrutinise on behalf of our constituents, our parties, and it is important that we make good law. It is important to have full discussion on issues. Thank you, Mr Finnie. I fully understand the legal process, and I also understand the parliamentary process, but I thank you for drawing my attention to it. Colin Smyth, if you would like to take that, could I ask you to take that amendment and then move on, please? I am happy to take the intervention. Would the member accept that one of the measures that could be taken in an area where there is high levels of air pollution is to remove traffic from that area altogether? Absolutely, there are a number of options. I know that local authority is looking at a school, for example, that there should not be vehicles in the vicinity of that school in a town centre. That is not a city. That is an area where there are concerns over air pollution. So there are alternative actions that can be taken, and if local authorities are taking those actions, that is why the exemption in this amendment exists. I take on board that the points raised by the cabinet secretary are over two areas, the work that is on going at the moment, and secondly, the reference in point 3 of my amendment and the values that are set out in schedule 2 of the air quality standards, Scotland regulations and the fact that the Government is looking at different areas. On that basis, I will not press my amendment, but I would hope that the cabinet secretary will have discussions to look at either an alternative amendment or work that can be taken in light of the work that the Government is taking over the summer periods in order to put in place a position whereby early Zs, which are regarded as an effective way to tackle air pollution, come into play where we have those illegal or very high levels of air pollution. Colin Smyth wishes to withdraw amendment number 43. Does any member object? Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. The question is that section 4 be agreed or we agreed. We are now going to move on to the procedure for making a scheme for low emission zones. I am going to call amendment 223 in the name of Peter Chapman, a group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Peter Chapman, can you move amendment 223 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I will move amendment 223 in my name. Amendment 223 is quite simple. It requires local authorities to prepare and publish an impact assessment of an area in which it wants to make an early Z. It requires them to consider the environment, to consider equalities, in other words ensuring that, for instance, low-income families are not detrimentally affected by its introduction, to consider the local economy. We do not want to see local businesses in struggling high streets to be further affected by an introduction of an early Z, and that should be taken into account. It could consider future policy plans and proposals as it sees fit. Scotland is a diverse and local authorities in Glasgow and in Aberdeen will not necessarily have the same objectives or considerations, and that word allows each local authority freedom to assess different areas as they think will be impacted. On your instructions, convener, I will be very brief. Similarly, I support all the motions by my colleague Jamie Greene in this grouping. However, I will let him talk to his own amendments himself. I will finish there. Thank you, Peter. Therefore, I would call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 35. The other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. I will not speak to all the amendments in this group. There are 20 of them, so I will stick to the ones that I am proposing in the interests of time. Amendment 35 and linked to that helpfully is 36, 37, 191 and 198, which are consequentials of amendment 35. Let me explain what I am trying to achieve by this. The bill currently stipulates that approval from Scottish ministers is required to do three things, set up, amend and revoke a zone. Although I think that it seems sensible for a Government to approve the setting up or indeed to make substantial changes to a zone, my amendment proposes that local authorities should have the power to revoke a zone at their discretion. For example, if a zone is deemed not to be meeting its intended objectives or is indeed having a detrimental impact on their area, if a local authority or indeed multiple local authorities have set up a zone should have the power to revoke a zone unilaterally. It goes back to my earlier point about having a purpose to a low-emission zone. There are many reasons why a local authority may choose to revoke a zone. At the moment, the current scenario says that ministers could block revocation of a zone. There are many reasons for that. I am keen to hear why the minister needs or wants that power. It could be to meet its own national or indeed international obligations, which is a fair point, but that would be at the expense of the local authority who no longer wishes to operate a zone. My belief therefore is that the local authority should have the final say on closing a scheme down if they choose to do so. The other amendments are consequentials and remove the revocation power from ministers accordingly. If I move to amendment 189, which is the next substantive amendment, amendment 189 would oblige that, before seeking permission from the Scottish Government to set up a zone, a local authority must provide a statement to the ministers underlining two things. What consultation took place in line with Mr Chapman's suggestion that there should be impact assessments on full and robust local consultation before setting up a zone, and indeed the outcome of that consultation and how the findings on that consultation have been considered in their proposals for a zone? I think that that will assist ministers and come into your view whether the approval of a zone goes ahead or not. Similarly, amendment 190 then says that Scottish ministers must take into account the statement provided by the local authority, indeed, as 189 suggests, as part of their decision-making process. I hope that members will find that a helpful addition to the setting up process. Finally, amendment 38, which is something different, simply pertains to what requires ministerial approval. I have added wording that says that the section under which the elements have to be approved by ministers on the face of the bill states that it does not require the approval to specify the geography of a low-emission zone or the times or dates of operation under which it operates. I have always been of the view that the Government should set the national standards in terms of vehicle standards, exemptions, approved devices and so on, but local authorities themselves should make local decisions on the practical operation of a zone that includes the geography of a zone and when it operates. I have for that reason that amendment seeks to remove that approval from ministers. Therefore, the final decision will be made by the local authorities themselves. Colin Smyth, can you speak to amendment 44 and any other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Amendment 44 to 48, in my name, adds to the list of statutory consultees when it comes to establishing the LEZ to ensure that the feedback is, in my view, more balanced. Two and a half thousand deaths a year in Scotland are attributed to air pollution and, given the significant health risks of air pollution, I believe, as is set out in amendment 44, that health boards and organisations representing those with health conditions caused by air pollution should be consulted when it comes to the development of the schemes. Likewise, the introduction of LEZs will have an impact on pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, and I believe that it is right that they have the opportunity, guaranteed, to feed in during the consultation process. Amendments 192 to 197 by John Finnie, likewise, add to the list of statutory consultees, and I think that those are all worthwhile. Amendment 193 clearly has the same aim as my own amendment 44, and I am happy not to press mine and support amendment 193 instead, of course, on the grounds that it clarifies that this should include any health board only partially in an LEZ. I cannot think of an example where a current health board boundary would make this necessary, but health board boundaries do change, therefore it is a sensible recommendation. Amendment 196 calls for bus users to be consulted. I think that this is something that I very much support, although it is potentially covered in my amendment 47. If there is an argument for, specifically, name-checking bus users, I am not opposed to that particular amendment. I do not support the other amendments that have been tabled. Possible with the exception of amendment 223 in Peter Chapman's name, I can see the benefits of that particular amendment requiring local authorities to undertake impact assessments before introducing an LEZ. However, I am concerned that we make two burdensome, and I think that it is important that we do not do that. However, on balance, the need for analysis, which I would expect most local authorities, would undertake anyway, is certainly something that is worth considering. John Finnie, can you speak to amendment 192 and any other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. It is, basically—I will not repeat a lot of what Colin said there—the bodies outlined community council health boards, children's commissioners, trade unions, staff associations and less. Are there all people who would have a particular dimension to add to discussions that would take place on this, and I hope that members will see that that is appropriate. It is very hard to argue against a rigorous impact assessment being made in respect and indeed in Mr Chapman's amendment 223. I have some reservations about paragraph C, which talks about the economy of its area. I would hope that there will be consideration about the economic impact of not putting in place a low-emission zone. I am still as yet undecided on that, and I will leave it there. I would just speak on amendment 192, John Finnie's amendment. Just on the very narrow point that the 1973 act to which his amendment refers, establishing a community council does not imply that there is an operating community council, because the scheme that was brought forward by the local authority would cover all the areas, but, as we know how much community councils should be there, they just need to be there. In any event, when you look at the legislation section 51.2, the general duty of community councils is to do that anyway. In legislation, the community council is already doing it. There is a bit of ambiguity in requiring that some bodies that do not exist in the real world have to be consulted. I do not think that it is worth it, to be honest. I do not know what it is. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to speak to the Parliament, please? The amendment 223, in Peter Chapman's name, would require local authorities to prepare and Withoutévirus y Solended Though it'll be there in September, you can see I'll be there and there for you I'll just stay here It's over It's there It's there mae'r ddafodol yn ysgolwyddiant i'w cymrydau yn dros i gynhyrchu gweithredu o'r adrodd cyfan. Rwy'n gwbod ddiddordeb i'w ddodd i'w ddoddwg ddodd, ond rydw i'w ddoddwg ddodd y ddodd i'w ddodd i'w ddodd, ond ond ddoddodd yn gweithredu i gweld fforddau i fynd i gydag. Amendment 35, 36, 37, 191 a 198 by Jamie Greene. The collective aim to alter ministerial powers on the topic of revoking an LEZ such that ministerial powers would extend only to an LEZ scheme being made or amended but not being revoked. There is arguably no gain in achieving such powers. Indeed, removing those powers would weaken the scrutiny that is placed on LEZs, particularly at a crucial point where a scheme is to be revoked and removed. Removing ministerial scrutiny powers around the revocation of LEZs would not be in keeping with the current approach adopted within the local air quality management process. Local authorities must demonstrate to ministers that an air quality management area can be revoked and that there is scientific merit in doing so. As such, there should be an expectation that similar scrutiny would be afforded to the revocation of LEZs. Amendment 36 and 37 follow amendment 35 on the basis of revocation powers. As such, Scottish ministers could only make modifications to an LEZ scheme proposal or consult with stakeholders where a scheme is made or amended but not where it is revoked. Again, that removes a necessary level of scrutiny and accountability from the process, so I would urge the committee not to support those amendments. I appreciate the issue around scrutiny and transparency and the Government's ability to scrutinise its own. There are lots of other bits of the bill that allow the Government to do that in terms of reports, annual reporting and so on, but the point that I am making here is that, if a local authority wishes to close a scheme down for any reason, you, at the moment, have the power to say, no, you can't. That is the power that I am trying to remove. You have not quite justified it. For the very reasons that I have just outlined, in the way in which we operate with local air quality management process, it has to be quantified and demonstrated scientifically that there is merit in revoking such a scheme and removing such a scheme, we would expect the same for LEZs, given what their purposes are, so that local authorities, when they are seeking to revoke them, are able to show merit for the reasons as to why they are choosing to revoke it. Amendment 189 would hold local authority to account in demonstrating the consultation responses that were considered in a meaningful and accountable way. Amendment 190 would direct the Scottish ministers to consider the actions undertaken by the local authority under amendment 189 in their decision making around the approval of an LEZ scheme. Given that consultation is already a requirement in the bill, local authorities would already consider the outcome of the consultation as part of the scheme proposal that is submitted to the Scottish ministers, so that those amendments are not required. However, in the interests of transparency, I am prepared to support the principle behind those amendments, but I would ask Jamie Greene not to press him today on the basis that my officials will look at them with a view to bringing forward amendments to achieve the effect sought at stage 3. Amendment 38 would remove the requirement for the Scottish ministers to give prior approval to parts of the scheme proposal relating to the scheme area and in the event that the scheme seeks to set out alternatives to the default position that the LEZ operates at all times. Amendment 38 should be rejected because ministers should be expected to approve a scheme in its entirety, not just portions of the scheme. Arguably, the scheme's geographical extent and its ills of operation are two of the most significant and controversial elements of a scheme. Stakeholders would certainly expect such aspects to be considered by ministers and for ministers to raise queries on such issues as a form of its challenge function before any approval to the scheme as a whole is given. Amendment 191 would see local authorities undertaking prior consultation with listed stakeholders only for an LEZ scheme being made or amended but not revoked. Again, I do not think that this is advisable as it removes a level of accountability from the revocation process and for that reason I would urge the committee to reject this amendment. A number of amendments are proposed on the topic of prior consultation, which would see extensions to the mandatory list of stakeholders to be consulted. Given that regulations under section 6C would already allow this list to be expanded, I am inclined not to be too prescriptive on the face of the bill, but I am happy to commit to using the section 6 powers to add the persons listed in amendment 44 and 45 in 192, 193, 194 and 195. I am inclined not to support amendments 45, 46, 196 and 197 because I think that they are framed in two, open and two, open and ended away to be legally meaningful for local authorities, but again we would be happy to incorporate similar requirements into section 6 regulations. Although I appreciate the sentiment behind Colin Smyth's amendment 48, given that one of the key drivers behind improving equality is to improve the health of those most affected by a pollution, I believe that the scope of that, as drafted, is simply too wide, meaning that it would be very difficult to deliver in a meaningful and practical manner, and on that basis I cannot support it. Finally, returning to the topic of revoking an LEZ, amendment 198 focuses on the issue of a local authority having the power to cause a local inquiry to be held, but the effect would be to allow this only to happen when an LEZ scheme is being made or amended, not when an LEZ scheme is being revoked. Again, I think that this approach would remove an important power of scrutiny from the revocation process, and I would urge the committee to reject it on that basis. As such, I would ask Peter Chapman, Jamie Greene and John Finnie and Colin Smyth not to press the amendments in this group, but if they are pressed, I would urge the committee to reject them. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am now going to call on Peter Chapman to wind up and press all withdraw his amendment, please. Thank you, convener. I have heard and listened to what the cabinet secretary has to say, but I actually think that it is right and proper that the local authority should prepare and publish an impact assessment. We need the analysis of the effects of a put-in-place on LEZ. Now, that does not mean to say that the LEZ will not be put in place, but it is right to have the debate, and it may allow other mitigation measures to be put in place. I think that it is right and proper that that allows the questions to be asked, and it allows that debate to be heard. I think that it is important that we go down that road before they are put in place, and LEZs are put in place. I am going to move amendment 223 in my name. Thank you. Having done that, the question is that amendment 223 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There were five votes, four, six votes against, therefore the amendment was not agreed. Therefore, call amendment 35 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 223. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I now call amendment 189 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 223. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Based on the kind of secretary's comments, I will not move. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 36 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 223. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 37 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 223. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 190 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 223. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment 38 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 223. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. The question, therefore, is section 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I therefore call amendment 191 in the y name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 223. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment 44 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 223. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Not moved on the basis of John Finnie's amendment 193, which is better working. I therefore call amendment 192 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 223. John Finnie, to move or not move? Move, convener. Thank you. The question therefore is that amendment 192 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. I would ask those in favour to raise their hands, please. Those against to raise their hands, please. There are therefore two votes in favour, nine votes against, therefore the motion of the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 193 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 223. John Finnie, to move or not move? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 193 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Therefore, those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Therefore, there are five votes in favour, there are six votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 194 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 223. John Finnie, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 195 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 223. John Finnie, to move or not move? Move. Okay. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. There are two votes in favour of amendment 195 and nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 45 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 223. Colin Smith, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Okay. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. Okay. There were two votes for amendment 145 and nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 46 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 223. Colin Smith, to move or not move? Move. The question, therefore, is amendment 46 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Okay. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. There were two votes for this amendment, nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not carried. I call amendment 47 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 223. Colin Smith, to move or not move? Move. Sorry, I didn't hear. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for and nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 48 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 223. Colin Smith, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for this amendment, nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 196 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 223. John Finnie, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 196 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Therefore, are those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for this amendment, nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 197 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 223. John Finnie, to move or not move? No. Thank you. The question, therefore, is that section 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 198 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 223. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move. The question, therefore, is that section 7 now be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question, therefore, is section 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 199 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 185. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Bear with me, can you know? Move. 199. 199, sorry. 199 move. Sorry. Did I say something else? No, it's not myself. Sorry. Move. Move. The question is that amendment 199 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Okay. There are three votes for this amendment, eight votes against, therefore, this amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 200 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 185. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move, can you know? Thank you. I now move on to the next section on low emission zones, which is the contents of schemes. I am going to call amendment 49 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 2, 2, 4 and 50. Cabinet secretary, please can you move amendment 49 and speak to the amendments in the group? Convener, this group of amendments concerned the content of LEZ schemes. Amendment 49 would allow local authorities the option to set the vehicle scope of their LEZ from the outset. This approach is commonplace in European LEZs and is also being used to set up clean air zones in England. This would mean that each LEZ scheme would be able to identify the vehicle types that are incorporated into the scheme using the scientific information available, rather than making LEZs applicable to all vehicles. The vehicle type would align with those that are published by the vehicle certification agency, so the approach is quite different to the creation of exemptions, which is likely to focus on specific uses of vehicles. The amendment would not impact or limit the overall ambition of an LEZ, rather it would enable a proportionate and targeted approach to address those vehicles, which contribute significantly to air pollution in certain locations. Amendment 50 works in tandem with amendment 49 to ensure that LEZ schemes can make different provisions for different types of vehicles. That means that LEZ schemes will be able to introduce specific provisions for specific types of vehicles, rather than offering a catch-all provision for all vehicles. For example, the design of grace periods would also need to adjust accordingly, so that they align with certain types of vehicles, and amendment 50 would achieve that outcome. Does that not come back to the fact that what you are saying is that councils could accept classic cars and old buses in the garage to shows? Is that not another section where the council could take that provision? It gives them some flexibility to be able to do that alongside the national exemption arrangements. That leads me to amendment 224. That amendment would make it mandatory for local authorities to include an objective to improve transport related emissions around schools by 2021. Clearly, improving air quality around schools would be universally welcome and the generality of the power to specify a scheme's objectives in the bill under section 91C would already allow such an objective to be set. In fact, I would encourage local authorities to consider this specific aspect when setting their LEZ objectives. However, I would draw attention to a number of issues with that amendment. First, the 2021 date might not align with the grace period and enforcement timetable with a local authority that a local authority might wish to assign to an LEZ scheme. For example, the low emissions zone plans for all vehicles will not come into effect in Glasgow until the end of 2022. That is also true for Edinburgh's draft plan for their citywide LEZ. Secondly, that amendment is too short term and would not be applicable after 2021. Thirdly, an LEZ will seek to improve air quality across its whole area, so setting an alternative air pollution reduction target for a small locality seems unworkable, given that LEZ powers will be standardised across its area. Finally, actions in various cities are already under way via existing air quality management action plans to reduce transport-related air pollution around schools, such as minimising vehicle idling outside schools, and those are being delivered without the need for an LEZ. It is for those reasons that I would ask the committee to reject amendment 224 and to support amendment 49 and 50 in my name. I move amendment 49. David Stewart, can you speak to amendment 224, please, and the other amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. I have laid this amendment as I want to open up discussion about air pollution and who it is affecting. As we all know, the people who hit the hardest are the most vulnerable, the oldest, the youngest and those with comorbidity or other health conditions. The Children of Scotland have done nothing to contribute to air pollution and the air quality around schools is often shockingly low. As we spend at least six hours a day there, we need to do all that we can to ensure a higher quality of air than they are breathing in. On top of the vulnerability of children, there is also the issue of the social economic bias. The lower income band you are in, the more likely you will live surrounded by poor air quality. It is really a no-brainer that breathing in air pollution causes heart and lung conditions among others. We will exacerbate other health conditions, too, so we really need to be doing everything that we can to improve air quality. I know from this debate and others that other MSP colleges have been doing work on how air quality can be monitored. I listened to John Finnie earlier and Colin Smyth, and I believe that Maurice Golden has put forward for air quality monitors to be added to schools. It would be a positive way to show whether or not Ellie Zed's are working if you can show that children are better protected. I move amendment 2 to 4, in my name. With reference to the intervention just a moment ago from John Finnie, about the types of vehicles that local authorities can exempt, I am surprised when we were discussing our debating the middle phrases amendments earlier on that the focus and those his amendments were on the fact that he wanted on the face of the bill, but the minister said it could be addressed in ministerial regulations, but now it has just been confirmed as I understand the intervention and the minister's response. With amendments 49 and 50, it does give local authorities, when they set up and propose their emission zones, the ability to exempt cars for instance over 30 years if they so wish, and I would really just want to make sure that I have understood that correctly and therefore I'll be very supportive of 49 and 50 from the government, because as I understand it, when we, I can see the minister taking advice from officials, so I'll just say one more point. So if the council has to set up the scheme, it must say the zone to which it replies, it must be a reference to on a map, it must specify the roads, a part of the roads that are formed, the date at which the scheme comes into effect, and the types of vehicles to which it applies. Therefore, logically, when I'm reading this, if we accept this amendment, then it empowers the councils to exempt the classic cars that are made of Fraser's amendments without letting their minister something up, I'd like that confirmed. Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener. I mean, I support both the cabinet secretary's amendments in this group, but the one caveat I have is that, following up on Mike Rumble's intervention there about the classic cars thing, the problem I have is that it allows different rules for different local authorities, as I understand it, so Aberdeen local authority could allow classic cars into an LEZ and Glasgow could not, and I'd ask the cabinet secretary to clarify that point as regards having a scheme that's the same right across the country. As far as David Stewart's amendment 2 to 4, this is an objective that we're very keen to see met, and we support the principle of this amendment entirely. However, I am concerned with the time constraint of 2021. In practicality, this date would be impossible to meet, because many of the LEZs will not be in place by that date. If this amendment was brought back at stage 3 without this time constraint, I think that I would be more than happy to support it. I do have concerns over amendments 49 and 50, which allow local authorities to make exemptions for vehicles. A number of stakeholders highlighted the need for consistency across the country. In reality, as so did the committee, our stage 1 report was very clear. We stated, The committee believes that to avoid confusion and to encourage compliance, there must be consistency across the country as to which vehicles can enter an LEZ in which are exempt. That was a view of this committee in our stage 1 report just a few weeks ago. Different exemptions across the country could create confusion for those travelling between different local authorities, and we'll make the message around LEZs more difficult to communicate with the public. It is also very much an open poll which could be used to significantly weaken the effectiveness of LEZs if it was not used appropriately. I do have concerns over those two amendments. As I said, so did the committee just a few weeks ago. Amendment 224, in David Stewart's name, is a very welcome addition. There is a specific issue around air pollution outside schools, and it is fair to call for schemes to be working towards a clear target in this regard. There would be an opportunity if the committee agreed amendment to amend the timescale at stage 3, if that was the main concern, and if we were to agree the principle at this point. I hear what Colin Smyth is saying. He's raising a very interesting point. I actually agree in many respects because the committee was very clear from the stakeholders that we took evidence from over many months that they wanted consistency. I think that the cabinet secretary probably agrees with that principle of consistency. However, my worry is that, including the types of vehicles that it applies, if the purpose of it is to allow a local authority to operate multiple zones, for example, or a zone within a zone such as the case may be in Edinburgh, where you have an inner zone and an outer zone, and certain types of vehicles are eligible for entry into one but not the other. If that amendment technically allows them to do that, that is fine, but if an unintended consequence of allowing local authorities to set the vehicle type means that they could create permanent exemptions, as we discussed, it would, as other members have alluded to, inevitably lead to inconsistency, where a driver may be eligible to drive into one zone in one city but not another zone in another. I think that the two contradict each other because I'm unclear as to whether the Government wants local authorities to decide which vehicle types can come in or whether the Government wants to dictate a national standard on vehicle types. I was always the view that I thought the committee was clear that it should be a national standard, at least a technical standard, if nothing else. That could benefit from some clarification. Overall, it paints a wider picture of confusion around who decides exemptions, whether that would be in secondary legislation, whether it would be Government regulations or whether it is local authorities themselves. Even if, according to the processes that the bill dictates, local authorities specify the vehicle type in section 9, the ministers still have the final power to approve or not the proposition given to them by local authorities. I think that that is something that requires some clarification. There are two ways in which we can approach this. If the committee was minded to pass the amendment as its word, I would suggest that we remove simply the words by 2021 to make it competent, and I would support it at that level. Equally, if the member did not move it, I would be happy for him to bring it back without those words, but I would be happy to support it in the rest of its entirety, as the word did. Richard Lyle, followed by John Finnie. I think that, basically, as the morning has went on, Mike Rumbles was actually me who raised the point about classic cars again for the second time with the cabinet secretary, and he basically has confirmed that a council could have the discretion. However, Jamie Greene is correct. The committee, through all the discussion, has—if we are going to say that it is going to be the same penalty charge or whatever in all areas—that it should be the same conditions in all areas. That is why I would say to the cabinet secretary to look at the points that were raised by, in particular, Murdo Fraser regarding classic cars, John Mason regarding classic buses and David Stewart's point. As far as I am concerned, low-emission zones could be anywhere and everywhere that people want them. I have got two grandchildren who are going to school, three grandchildren, in fact. One is only one. Basically, the situation is that most of us do have family or children, and we want to ensure that we get a better quality or a better quality. Other areas might have leeds rather than just cities. Thank you, Richard. I am glad that you did not forget one of your grandchildren. That would have cost you later. A couple of comments, if I may convene, are that a lot of the discussions that we have had are about, if you like, attention between central direction and local discretion. I think that that is the healthy thing that we have. To pick up specifically, it is important that we note what the committee said in its report, particularly with regard to 1450. I dare say that whatever we agree, we are not going to make everyone happy, so that is not going to change regardless of the legislation. I would like to lend my support to my colleague David Stewart's legislation. It is a very ambitious timeframe, and I am sure that David will recognise that. I would hope none the less that members would lend their support to it, because if we cannot see to protect children at school, then we should not be here, quite frankly. Thank you, John. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to wind up, please? It may be helpful if I set out the purpose behind the particular powers that we are setting out for local authorities here. This is to do with the scope of the LEZ, and what comes into the scope of the LEZ. Is it buses, cars, and HGVs that are all included in it? If, for example, we have a local authority who is looking to implement an LEZ, but the scientific evidence for the problem in their town centre is not cars, it is not buses, it is HGVs. It allows them to set the scope of their LEZ to apply to HGVs in order to tackle the issue, if that is what is having an impact on their quality. Equally, if a local authority is an area where all of the buses comply and are Euro 6 compliance, for example in a city such as Aberdeen, and they are setting up an LEZ, it means that they have the flexibility not to include buses in it, because buses are not the issue that they have to address through their LEZ. If cars are included in it, it means that, and they decide to include cars in it, it means that vintage cars come into scope. The way in which they deal with vintage cars is through an exemption for vintage cars. If cars are not included in the scope of the LEZ, then vintage cars would not be covered by it. That is about setting the scope of the LEZ. What is covered by it? Let me finish this point. Is it all vehicles of any standard, or is it the vehicles that are causing them problems with air pollution for the very purpose for which they are actually setting up the LEZ in order to target it? It also gives them the flexibility to be able to then decide on if buses do not need to be included because they are all compliant and it is not causing the pollution, then they do not have to include it in it. It gives them the option and the ability to do that. If so, later they say that buses become fully compliant, they can remove it from the LEZ because it is no longer required as well. I will give way to Mr Smith first of all and Mr Rumbles. I ask the minister to clarify two things. If buses are already compliant with the level then, frankly, they have nothing to fear by being included in the LEZ because, frankly, they can drive into that area because their buses are compliant. They do not need an exemption, but, sadly, buses do change. Often a company will bring in an older bus and that would then be in breach of that, but it would be okay because we have exempted them. I am not too sure of his point on buses, but I can specifically answer the question about exemptions. Would this amendment that is being proposed allow a local authority, not to give an exemption for a whole scope of vehicles, cars or buses, but to give specific exemptions around vintage vehicles? I think that the concern is that having different rules in different areas is what the committee was concerned about. No, it would not. What it does is it allows them to set the scope of the LEZ. For example, as I mentioned, if all buses that are being produced now, which are produced to the EU standards of being at Euro 6, then in five years' time for some areas buses will no longer be in scope because they are compliant with what would be required with any LEZ that is put in place in the first place. Keep in mind what you are trying to address. You are trying to address issues of pollution. Is it buses, trucks and cars that are causing it? Therefore, you would want the scope of your LEZ to cover those areas. If it is only trucks and cars, why would you have buses in it then? Because buses are already compliant with it, they are not causing the air pollution issue that you are trying to address. This is about giving them the flexibility because as we go forward and our local authorities look at implementing LEZs, things will change and the circumstances might be different there. Specifically, on the idea of vintage cars, no, it would not give them the power to be able to do that. However, if cars were not included within the scope of their LEZ, then vintage cars would not be in it in the first place. Let me deal with Mike Rumbles next. I hope that that clarifies the point for Mr Smith. Thank you very much for taking my intervention, minister. If I was a local authority looking at this amendment and putting it into the bill, I said that cars are an issue, so it comes into the scope, but it is polluting cars that are under 30 years old. You do not have to mention classic cars. You can just say as a local authority that I want to put in this zone all cars up to 30 years old. Do not mention classic cars but have the effect of excluding classic cars. That is what would happen if that was in the bill. It is vehicle type. The vehicle type would be car, bus or HGV. If you include car, it includes vintage cars. It is vehicle type. To give them the stability to set the scope of it, which vehicles are included within it, which is different from providing exemptions, which are set at a national level. There is a consistent approach. That was the same point, so you have clarified that. Is that you complete? If it answers the member's questions, please, convener. I am not sure what you will answer everyone's questions. The question that I have, having had that wind-up, is amendment 49 agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those in favour of please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are 10 votes for the amendment and one vote against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed. I therefore call amendment 201 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 32. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? I therefore call amendment 224 in the name of David Stewart, already debated with amendment 49. David Stewart, to move or not move? Convener, not move, but if I can say that I reserve the right to bring this back at stage 3, and I thank the colleagues for the very positive comments. If the cabinet secretary is agreeable, I would like to meet him to get a wording that perhaps keeps him with the objectives, but perhaps reduces the issue around timescale. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will come back to you whether that is possible. I am going to call amendment 50 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 49. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally, please? The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question therefore is section 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 202 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 185. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move, convener. Thank you. We are then going to move on to the low-emissions zone, so the power to set the mission standards. I want to give committee members advanced warning and the cabinet secretary that it is my intention to push on until 12.45 or thereby to try and get through as many amendments as possible, but that will really depend on how the debate goes. That is the sort of time I am going to call amendment 225 in the name of Colin Smyth group with amendment 184. Can you move amendment 225 and speak to both amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I am happy to move amendment 225, which would allow a higher emission standard target being set. I appreciate the need for consistency in general. I think that there should be an element of flexibility when it comes to the actual target for emissions to allow for the creation of ultra-low emission zones. I think that it is far easier to understand than a vehicle-based exemption, as the boundary of an ultra-low emission zone can be mapped with appropriate signage. The national standard is likely to be something of a compromise in order to ensure that it is usable by everyone. This will mean areas with particularly severe air pollution problems won't be able to go any further than those dealing with a moderate issue. I think that local authorities should have the power within reason to introduce ultra-low emission zones in the parts of their area with the most severe levels of air pollution. I am not suggesting that this should be allowed freely, but I think that it should be an option available to them, subject to agreement by ministers. The ministerial sign-off will ensure that it is not misused. In England, the clean air zone framework refers to minimum standards, given that local authorities have the flexibility to go further when needed. We have the job of balancing the need for a general consistency, with the reality that a one-size-fits-all approach will not always work. I think that limited, targeted ultra-low emission zones are the way to strike that particular balance. I am happy to move the amendment to my name. I ask the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 184 and the other amendments in the group. Amendment 225 would introduce a power for local authorities to alter the emission standards for their local LEZ, such that they could make the emission standards more stringent than the forthcoming nationally set standards in regulations. As we have already discussed during stage 1, the regulations will most likely be the standard set for Euro 6 for diesel and Euro 4 for petrol vehicles. Having the emission standards set by Scottish ministers and regulations allows the national consultation with stakeholders to determine an emission standard that will work for all local authorities while retaining consistency for individuals. The existing powers in the bill will allow the Scottish ministers to prescribe more stringent emission standards in future should that become desirable. As such, this approach could meet the desired outcome of amendment 225 but would do so in a way that maintains national consistency. That approach could also dovetail with our commitment to promote the use of ultra-low emission vehicles by creating in time more challenging emission standards that only ultra-low emission vehicles could achieve. However, we need to have clear and consistent LEZ emission standards to ensure that drivers will have the certainty to move between cities without worrying about whether their vehicle does or does not comply with different emission standards in different places. Having that consistency will also help vehicle purchasers to make informed decisions when buying a new vehicle or planning a journey. It is therefore a government policy to have a nationally set emission standard in regulations and in this basis, convener, I would ask Collins Smith not to press amendment 225, but if pressed, I would ask the committee to reject it. I put forward amendment 184 to ensure that regulations made to set emission standards under section 144A will be approved through affirmative rather than negative parliamentary procedure in response to a recommendation from stage 1 by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, who took the view that those regulations should be subject to the additional scrutiny afforded by affirmative procedure given the significance of the issue to the bill. I made a commitment to the DPLRC to pursue the matter and the amendment makes that desired change. That is the committee to support amendment 184 in my name and to ask Collins Smith not to press amendment 225 and for the committee to reject it should it be pressed. Richard Lyle, followed by Jamie Greene. I can see the point that Collins is getting at, but I have to remind him that there are 32 councils in Scotland. Although everyone is concentrating on cities, there may be councils that think that they want to bring in zones within their local areas. The problem that you have is that depending on the car that you have bought and depending on whether the information is correct by the manufacturer and some manufacturers get caught out on what they said that their cars were. People could get very worried driving from one area to another. We have got to have emission zones and we have got to ensure that it is a national standard. Again, I would say to Collins Smith to withdraw this. Richard Lyle, you have a very lengthy discussion in this session around national standards and the confusion of drivers going from one zone to another. In consistency, we all agree that it is important. Would this amendment have an unintended consequence of, inevitably, leading to local authorities having different emission standards in their zones? My question, perhaps not to Collins Smith, but perhaps to the Government, is whether the legislation, as it currently stands, allows local authorities to deviate from the national standard that regulations dictate, and I think that it is right that regulation is the right place to dictate the technical standard. If a local authority or a city wanted to have an ultra-low emission zone, could they use the legislation to do it or would it require separate legislation or secondary legislation? Or is this amendment needed to give them that power to do it? I do not want to cause the localised inconsistency that we talked about, but equally, this might be a power of benefit to local authorities. I am just throwing it out there as a point of discussion. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, do you want to answer that particular point before I ask Collins Smith to wind up, please? My understanding for that is that you would require different regulations to set the standard that has to be applied for a low emission zone if it was to become a standard that would be viewed as being an ultra-low emission zone. That would require regulatory change, which is the benefit of actually doing it through regulations. That is a matter that can be brought back to Parliament without having to go to primary legislation. Therefore, I am going to ask Collins Smith to wind up and press him with the drawers of amendment, please. I think that members are correct to say that we did have a debate on local flexibility earlier, and we agreed or the committee voted for local flexibility when it came to vehicles. Therefore, surely the principle stands when it comes to the actual area covered by the LEZ, which is easier to get messages across because of signage than it is in terms of saying that, in one LEZ, some vehicles are covered and in another LEZ, in another part of the country, only other vehicles are covered. My fear still remains that the national standard that is set is likely to be something of a compromise to ensure that it is usable by everyone. That means that those areas with severe air pollution problems will not go any further than an area that has a moderate issue, albeit that your pollution is dangerous. That flexibility is not a freely used power. It is one that would be used in very exceptional circumstances where there is an exceptional high level that requires to go beyond what the standard is across Scotland. I think that that is a proposal that is merited in exceptional circumstances, and that is why the ministerial sign-off part is contained within the amendment. Thank you. Are you pressing or withdrawing? I will press my amendment. The question is amendment 225. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. There are two votes for this amendment, nine votes against therefore this amendment is not agreed. I would like to move on to periods of operation and suspension on low emission zones. Before I call amendment 51 in the name of the cabinet secretary, I would like to point out if amendment 226 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 53 and 54. Furthermore, if amendment 205 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 62 and 63. Cabinet secretary, I would like to ask you to move amendment 51 and speak to the amendments in the group. The amendments in this group can be divided into three broad areas. The suspension of low emissions zones for events, ills of operation and graced periods. On the temporary suspension of ills for certain events, the Government has put forward amendments 61, 62 and 63 to make necessary and pragmatic modifications to section 18 of the bill. The committee will be aware that there were various views during stage 1 regarding such suspensions and the definition of what may constitute such an event. What is clear above all from the quite diverse views is the flexibility that flexibility is needed, and that is what the amendments attempt to secure. Amendment 62 broadens the scope of how an event that would qualify for a temporary suspension would be classified. The original focus on national importance was deemed to be too limiting and too vague to many stakeholders. It was noted that councils can hold events that are of substantial local importance such as sporting events or festivals. Therefore, this amendment would allow for suspension regarding such local events with further detail to be set out in further guidance. However, in order to ensure such temporary suspensions cannot just continue indefinitely, amendment 63 sets a seven-day limit in the absence of prior ministerial approval. That timeframe was arrived at after discussion with local Government officials with experience in this area. Connected to this, amendment 61 allows for flexibility regarding the geographical scope of such a suspension. The effect would be to allow a local authority to suspend either the whole or only part of the area of an LEZ where the event is being held, offering necessary flexibility. Amendment 205 allows a local authority to suspend a scheme indefinitely without having to state the purpose, while amendment 206 does the opposite, meaning that an LEZ cannot be suspended under any circumstances. Neither of those options would work in practice and would not offer the local authority flexibility to operate an LEZ in a pragmatic manner. Amendment 60 looks to make all suspensions contingent on ministerial sign-off, which seems overly bureaucratic and runs against the grain of allowing a level of local flexibility as much as possible. Therefore, if all the measures put forward by the Government strike the right balance on this issue, amendment 58 stipulates that LEZs must operate at all times with no option to adjust or alter those times. Although the operation of LEZs 24-7 should be the default and section 13-1 of the bill already makes that clear, there must be an option for local authorities to alter this approach if there is sufficient evidence to justify a different approach, noting that ministers will review the LEZ scheme's design, including the hours of operation. Again, the approach of amendment 58 is too inflexible in practice. On grace periods, amendment 49 was debated earlier in group 8 to allow local authorities to have the option to apply LEZ restrictions to certain types of vehicles. That would be applied only where there was a viable case to do so and would still be subject to an impact assessment and ministerial sign-off procedure. Amendment 51 and 52 follows on from amendment 49. They ensure that the requirement in section 10-3 for an LEZ scheme to specify grace periods for both residents and non-residents includes a requirement to specify the particular vehicle type exempt under each kind of grace period. There are a range of interesting ideas on grace periods within amendments that are tabled in this group from other members. Amendment 226 takes the approach of minimum grace periods with a sliding scale for various types of vehicles, yet the amendment specifies no maximum limit, meaning that grace periods could be completely open-ended. Amendment 252 makes regulations made under the power here subject to affirmative procedure. Conversely, amendment 55 looks to set more stringent grace periods than those set out on the bill. Amendment 53 and 54 also looks to make alterations on grace periods. There are obviously wide and diverging views here, but I think that the grace period in the bill of between one to four years for non-residents with up to a further two years for residents is the most appropriate and balanced approach to be taken. As such, I would ask the committee to support amendment 51, 52, 61, 62 and 63 in my name, and I would ask Jamie Greene, Colin Smith and John Finnie not to press the amendments that they have in this group, but if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. I move amendment 51. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to speak to amendment 226 and any other amendments in the group? I will do this in reverse order. I jumped to amendment 205 first. The cabinet secretary was speaking about temporary suspension for events. What my amendment does is, quite simply, if members are looking at the bill, is on page 8 of the bill line 10 simply to put a full stop after the words where the authority considers it appropriate to do so. As it currently stands, notwithstanding the amendments that the cabinet secretary has put forward subsequently, local authorities can only suspend the operation of their own when an event is to be held and is considered of national importance or, if passed, indeed of significant local importance. In effect, I just want to remove that top-down rule that dictates local authorities when the suspension is appropriate or not. I think that local authorities have the sense to make informed decisions about suspensions, and therefore the deletion of the rest of section 18, in my view, seems an appropriate way to address that, to give local authorities the power to make sensible decisions about suspensions. I trust their judgment and that respect. On the issue of grace periods, I think that a number of members are coming at this from different angles and different propositions. I do appreciate the cabinet secretary's acknowledgement that there are differing views on that. My worry is that by not moving our amendments that the concept of what we are trying to achieve is lost. Let me explain why. As it stands at the moment in the bill in terms of grace periods, it simply differentiates between residents and non-residents and sets a minimum and a maximum range for a grace period. One could argue with the numbers, whether one to four years or two to six years is appropriate or inappropriate, but instead of changing the numbers, I would like to change the structure of how grace periods are offered. I appreciate that it is quite difficult in word format to present this. That made a lot more sense in tabular format, unfortunately. Under my proposals, I would like to do things slightly differently. We would set a minimum grace period rather than a range. I think that it seems appropriate to do so. We will still require a maximum grace period. The comment that the cabinet secretary made that this could be endless is not true. My amendment specifies that there must be an expiry. It is defined as a maximum period of time after the grace period begins. There is still an onus to put a maximum, but it is up to each local authority to decide what that maximum is depending on the needs of their zone. Thirdly, I would introduce the concept of different types of grace periods for different types of vehicles. What does this translate to, for members' benefit in essence, residents? As I have already defined in the bill, we are given one extra year to prepare for the arrival of zones, which I think is in line with the Government's own proposals to give residents extra time. That is sensible, but by creating different categories of road users, local authorities now have the technical ability to offer different grace periods to different road users. I have chosen, first, buses and coaches, who I believe are already well on their way to meeting the commitment and will have less of a problem. Secondly, commercial vehicles require additional time to adjust to the new world. That is done with the primary objective to support small businesses in our cities who either base in the city or do business in their cities. Lastly, roll-out arrives on the doorstep of everyday motorists and drivers. Many of those who are most likely to be affected by the zone are driving older cars, many of them are from lower-income households or rural parts of Scotland. It feels, to me, intrinsically fitting to give them more time than other vehicle categories. The Government seems to have identified the need for different grace periods for different vehicle types, as we see from amendment 52. I hope that the concept is palatable, even if we argue around the numbers, whether it is 1, 2, 3 or 2, 3, 4 and so on. I ask members to support the principle of the structure, and if you have any questions on it, I would be happy to answer them. At stage 3, we have the ability to amend the periods involved in this, but the concept that we want to achieve is to support small and medium businesses in our cities and to support those families who need the most time possible to make that adjustment and that moral shift that is needed in our cities. Thank you, Jamie Greene. Colin Smyth, can I ask you to speak to amendment 53 and the other amendments in the group, please, Colin? Thank you very much, convener. I will just briefly touch on amendments 51 and 52 in the cabinet secretary's name. The only point that I would make is that I am not keen on allowing vehicle-specific exemptions at a local level. I think that that creates confusion and inconsistency, and as with amendments 49 and 50, it does directly contradict the committee's stage 1 report and what we called on. Therefore, I do continue to have concerns over those vehicle-specific exemptions. In terms of my own amendments, amendment 53 and amendment 54 in my name provide local authorities with more flexibility to implement LEZs more quickly in instances where that might be appropriate. I think that that will help future proof of the bill or the introduction of an LEZ is a significant change for individuals at the moment and one that does require a fair lead-in period. This is not always going to be the case, this is a permanent piece of legislation and it should be open enough to deal with a range of scenarios both now and in the future. The issue of displacement that was raised with the committee during our stage 1 considerations and I think that providing more flexibility in grace periods would allow the boundaries of an LEZ to be tweaked if needed without requiring a two-year delay. You could have a situation in which a number of streets beside an existing LEZ sea vehicles are displaced into that particular street, but under the way that the bill works at the moment, you would require a minimum two-year lead-in time for any residents within that area simply for a minor tweak on a number of streets. I do not think that that provides the common-sense flexibility that we require. I am not suggesting that it should be common practice to go below the suggested minimums. I think that realistically it is likely that most local authorities will choose to stick with the periods that are within the bill at the moment, but we should trust that common sense will be used as LEZs develop in the future. However, even if local authorities were inclined to use this flexibility inappropriately, ministers will still have final sign-off, meaning that an LEZ with an unreasonable grace period will not be allowed even with the amendments that I propose. That is simply about removing something that might act as an unnecessary barrier to progress at some point down the line. In terms of amendment 55, that requires local authorities opting for the maximum grace period to have that decision signed off by ministers. In light of the climate emergency, we were asked to review every policy area and to consider whether we are doing enough to address those issues. In that context, a local authority choosing to wait six years to fully introduce an LEZ really is questionable, and it should have to justify such a choice. In the interests of providing flexibility, I am not trying to reduce the maximum grace period. I am simply seeking to provide some additional oversight on a decision such as this and a specific mechanism on this particular issue. Separate from the general ministerial agreement process will make clear that the maximum grace period should not be the default option whilst leaving the option there if it was needed under what I would have to say would be exceptional circumstances. Amendment 226 by Jamie Greene looks to move us in the opposite direction to my amendments, but given the urgency of this issue, the time that it takes to even get to the point of formally introducing an LEZ and a natural lifespan span of cars, I absolutely do not support slowing down the process any more than is necessary. Amendment 58 in my name clarifies that LEZs should operate 24-7. I think that that will ensure that LEZs are as effective as possible and will provide the clarity and consistency that many stakeholders told us they needed. LEZs operating only part of the time will create confusion for drivers and risk undermining the very aims of the scheme. We should be clearing the face of the bill that LEZs are to take place 24-7. I have to say that I have racked my brains to work out a single circumstance in which that should not be the case when, during the course of a day, should an LEZ not function and what would the criteria be. I listened carefully to what the Cabinet Secretary had to say, and he did not give an example either. That is why it is appropriate that LEZs do work 24-7. Amendment 60 in my name requires a decision to suspend LEZs for the events of national importance to be agreed by Scottish ministers. Given that provision is meant for events of national importance, it seems right that that should be agreed at a national level. I appreciate that there is an amendment here to include events of significant local importance, but even if that does pass, I think that the additional oversight that this amendment provides is needed. An important event is in itself not a reason to suspend an LEZ. In fact, in many instances, a large event will worsen air pollution, making the LEZ all the more important. So there should be some process for identifying when this is actually needed, and I think that ministerial agreement provides that and provides consistency across the country. Amendment 63 by the Cabinet Secretary requires any suspension lasting more than seven days to be approved by ministers, so I think that there is somewhat a contradiction between what the ministers are saying on events of national importance and events that last more than seven days, which require ministerial sign-off. As I said, any suspension under section 18 should be subject to agreement by ministers. However, if the committee are not ready to support amendment 60, I am happy to support amendment 63. At a minimum, long-term suspensions should be subject to approval by ministers. Amendment 206 by John Finnie removes section 18 of the bill entirely. I have to say that I am sympathetic to that, but in the interests of delivering a flexible legislative framework, I would, on balance, prefer to include the mechanism that I have put forward in my particular amendments, given more ministerial oversight. I think that it probably covers all my amendments, convener, so I will leave my comments at that. Thank you, Colin. John Finnie, can I ask you to speak to amendment 206, please? Are there any other amendments that you want to move on? Yes, indeed. What we do know, convener, is that there is a lot of energy and effort while going into the creation of low-emission zones. As the cabinet secretary said early on, there is a range of positions here regarding this. My amendment 206 will be seen as a bit of a nuclear option, but there is a lot of energy and effort that goes in. It will be supportive of Colin's amendment 58 regarding it being 24-7, not 24-7, depending on the councils. I think that there has to be a very clear signal given here that the intention of that is to improve the wellbeing of our citizens. That is not going to take place if there are suspension for events. You will know of very specific areas where they have winter festivals, summer festivals and spend most of the rest of the time trying to find festivals to fit in between winter and summer festivals, all of which could lead to suspensions and all that, which would mean that this could well be a mockery. Moving to the grace periods, I think that there are some pragmatic approaches adopted on respect of that. However, there is a lot of effort while going into the creation of those, and I would not want to see it eroded. I would have hoped that in any case that national emergencies would override any particular issue, but we need to be robust in that. That is an important piece of legislation and it should not be lightly dispensed with. I move amendment 3 and amendment 3A. I hope that members who supported me in the earlier part of the meeting will do so again. I am reminded that I spoke in stage 1 in regard to comments made by the British Lung Foundation. A quote, poor air quality increases everyone's risk of developing lung disease, cuts people's life short, makes existing lung conditions worse. If we are going to have an LEZ—let's have it 24-7—we can't switch it off and switch it on who we want to because people's lungs don't switch off and on. They are continually breathing in. As far as I'm concerned, I will be the briefing that is sent to us by the British Lung Foundation. I will be following it to a letter because, as far as I'm concerned, in that case I have to look after people's lungs. On the members' indicates that they want sweets, I would ask the cabinet secretary to wind up. Briefly, can we just make a couple of points? The default position for any LEZ is 24-7, so any deviation of that would have to be clearly justified and demonstrated for it to be agreed to. Can you give me an example of when it would ever be a request to not to have 24-7? What sort of circumstances would you see happen where somebody would argue for it not to be 24-7? When would that be? It could be that, for example, in our cities it might not apply but in some of our larger towns it might be that, for the very specific basis on which they are actually introducing the LEZ, it might be on the basis that it is a particular problem with buses within that area. Therefore, the LEZ applies to it. The bus services within that area may stop after 12 o'clock at night and not start again until 6 o'clock, to which the council may say that it would be appropriate therefore for the LEZ not to apply, because those vehicles are not there. They are not utilising the area, but they would have to be able to specify that and evidence that in any application to ministers to consider it. I am conscious that there is a big focus on cities, but in some of our smaller and larger towns that could end up having LEZs in the years ahead, there may be a need for us to take a slightly more flexible approach, which, if we do not have the power to do that, will be in a position where it may inhibit them from thinking about implementing an LEZ in the first place. You are saying that the council could suspend it between 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning. Here we are. A local authority may suspend the operation of a low-emission zone scheme for a specified period, where the authority considers it appropriate to do so for the purpose of the event. With a greater suspect, people do not stop breathing between 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning. At the end of the day, if it is going to be an early LEZ, it is going to be 24-7. End of story. I appreciate your point. I do not think that it will come as a surprise to anybody here that you could go about six hours without breathing. I would say to you that when you are setting primary legislation, you have to potentially think about issues that may arise further down the line. If you do not have the flexibility to address it, you are then back to having to address it through primary legislation because it was not anticipated at that time. That is why I am emphasising the point that the default is 27. Any deviation from that would have to be justified, but when you lock it into primary legislation, you do not provide any flexibility in future years should that be appropriate. Ministers can clearly be held to account, but when they make those decisions as well as to why they have allowed any flexibility in it. That is why it is about trying to future-proof the legislation rather than ignoring that point. I will make the final point, as well, that, in relation to Jamie Greene's amendment, he said that it is incorrect to say that there is not a time specified in it. The maximum time in your amendment, as it stands at the present time, could potentially be indefinitely. So, indefinitely applying it is an option for them. Notwithstanding the point that you have made, I understand that your view is that there is going to be a maximum to it, but the maximum could then be indefinitely. On that basis, it creates too much uncertainty in the matter. If it is very brief, I apologise, Mr Rumbles, that is a very important point. In that case, the minister and the Government could submit an amendment at stage 3 and include a maximum if it so choose to do so, but my point is around the categorisation of vehicles and setting the minimums. Would you support that? We have already set out in the bill and within our amendments what we think the categories should actually be, what the timeframe should be, the one to four years and the potential two-year extension for residents. I am winding up, cabinet secretary. There are now going to be a series of votes and I would ask members to stick with me as we come to the end of this session. The first question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 52 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 51. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally, please? The question is that amendment 52 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 226 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 51. Jamie Greene, do you agree to move or not move? I would remind members that if amendment 226 is agreed, I cannot call amendments 53 and 54 due to a preemption. The question is therefore amendment 226 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are three votes in favour of that amendment, eight votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 53 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 51. Colin Smyth, do you move or not move? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes in favour, nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 54 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 51. Colin Smyth, do you move or not move? Move, convener. The question therefore is that amendment 54 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Those in favour, please raise their hands. There are two votes, four and nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 55 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 51. Colin Smyth, do you move or not move? Move, convener. I call amendment 55 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 51. Colin Smyth, do you move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes in favour, nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. The question is that section 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question now is section 11 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I want to call amendment 203 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 221. Jamie Greene, do you move or not move? Not move, convener. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 56 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 221. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to move it for me? Moved. Thank you. The question is amendment 56 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 57 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 221. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that section 57 be agreed. Are we all... Sorry. Amendment 57 be agreed. I'm trying to go too quickly. I apologise. I'll read the question is that amendment 57 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question therefore is that section 21 be agreed. 12. 12. I am definitely going too quickly. My lunch is rumbling. So, the question is that section 12 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I therefore call amendment 3 in the name of Richard Lyle, already debated with amendment 221. Richard Lyle, to move or not move. Moved. I therefore call amendment 3A in the name of Richard Lyle, already debated with amendment 2221. Richard Lyle, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 3A be agreed. Are we all agreed? Mae'n gweithio. Mae yna ei iechyd o'rachten. Rhoednodd, wrth gwrs, rwyf yn ei eich gorffordd. Rwyf yn ei ei wych? Rhoeddd! Rhai! Rhoeddo! Rhoedda, rhoedda! Rhaedda, rhoedd, rhaeddo! Rhyw o'r hyn o'r cigarette? Rhaedda, rhaedda! Yn yng Nghymru, rhoeddu, rhaedda! Rhaedda, rhaedda! Rhoedd, rhoedda! Rhaedda, rhaedda! Rhaedda, rhaedda! Llywydd, rhaedda! I ask Rich Lyle if he wants to press or withdraw amendment 3. Oh, please. Okay, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Therefore, those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes, four, six votes against, therefore the amendment does not agreed. I therefore call amendment 58 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 51. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 58 be agreed, are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. We've all done it at some stage today, sir. And those against, please. Thank you. There are three votes, four, there are eight votes against, therefore the amendment does not agree. The question is that section 13 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I now would like to say that as far as we can go today. And we will pick up next week where we have left off. Amendments to the remaining section of the bill can still be lodged. And amendments to the remaining provisions in part 1 and 2 up until the end of this section 58 must be lodged by 12 noon tomorrow. Can I just say to committee members and the cabinet secretary, although we have made good progress today, it has been slow progress today, and we will need to work out the start and finish times and when we are sitting next week, and I will notify committee members once I've had a chance to talk to the clerks and the deputy convener about that later today, I hope. Thank you very much, and I now close the meeting.