 I welcome the opportunity to consider the stage one report for the Transport Scotland Bill. This bill is an ambitious and broad piece of legislation covering a wide range of issues. It aims to help to develop a cleaner, smarter and more accessible system for the travelling public across Scotland. The bill will empower local transport authorities and others to help to improve journeys for the travelling public. Members who have monitored the progress of the bill will know that it is a wide-ranging and aspirational, but it is also quite technical and complex in areas. Such a mix can make scrutiny challenging, so I would like to begin by commending the rural economy and connectivity committee for the diligent way that it has undertaken stage one consideration. The extensive range of voices and viewpoints that the committee has heard from across Civic Scotland is testament to accommodating and its meticulous approach to this matter. I welcome the committee's support for the general principles of the bill and its recommendation to Parliament that it should agree to the general principles of it. I also look forward to saying more during the course of today's debate about the Government's thinking on some of the matters that have been raised in the report. The bill's provisions range from measures to improve bus patternage, including smart ticketing, to improving air quality in our cities, increasing the safety and efficiency of road works and addressing parking issues. It also makes some necessary technical improvements to quite specific areas, for example ensuring more appropriate financial flexibility and governance arrangements for some public bodies. In developing the bill, a collaborative approach has been taken so that its measures are informed by those that it will affect. We fully intend this feature of engagement to continue as we develop associated regulations. Now, more widely, it is crucial that we see the bigger picture and how the bill fits into that. This legislation is part of a broader transport jigsaw and must be viewed in that wider context. Whilst matters such as low emissions zones and improved framework for our bus services and prohibitions on irresponsible parking will benefit many, they should not be seen in isolation. In addition to the bill, there is a host of other non-legislative work going on across my portfolio to drive improvement, not least the review of the national transport strategy. This wide-ranging review has seen extensive public engagement across Scotland. It is forward looking and will provide the high-level strategic and policy framework within which the measures in the bill will play out. I expect to issue a draft of the new strategy for consultation later this year. We anticipate that that will also set the context for future consideration of legislation beyond the current measures proposed in the bill. Such a wider strategic perspective is something that the lead committee has raised in the sphere of low emissions zones. We have always been clear that low emissions zones have the potential to interact with the host of other transport issues, be that congestion, active travel, the improved feeling of community space or the uptake of ultra-low-emission vehicles. It is in that vein that local authorities should be looking to implement them. The Scottish Government is aiding them in this, not least in the strategic context that I have just mentioned. Future LEZ guidance will also help to set the measures in that context. We are taking other practical action to make our transport system cleaner, greener and healthier and to improve air quality. Therefore, I am pleased that we seem to have quite wide political support for the principles of LEZs. Hopefully, there has been some fruitful discussions during stage 1 about specifics that will be set in subsequent regulations. That has covered such issues as penalty levels, the national emissions standards and the exemptions. Such feedback builds on the extensive engagement that the Government is having on those issues, running in tandem with the bill's progression. There have also been questions as to whether specifics on such issues should be set out on the face of the bill. It is worth remembering that LEZs are a new provision in Scotland. Therefore, the flexibility that is afforded by secondary legislation is necessary. It allows proper engagement on development of the detail and an ability to respond to technological changes. I will reflect carefully on comments made by the lead committee and the delegated powers and law reform committee to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of those very specific measures. In terms of improving air quality, buses are a part of the solution. Let me now turn to the bus provisions within the bill. Measures to incentivise bus services should be an intrinsic part of those wider proposals around modal shift in LEZ areas and beyond. The bill offers an ambitious new model for bus provision. The trend of declining bus patternage threatens networks across the country. We have to work together in order to address that. However, the trend varies across Scotland as do the causes. I am clear that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. The bill gives local authorities options to improve bus services in their areas, ensuring that they are sustainable bus networks across Scotland. It will support them to meet local needs, whether they wish to pursue partnership working, local franchising or running their own buses in certain circumstances. On the last issue, I am aware that there have been calls for us to widen our proposal for local authorities to run commercially competitive services themselves. As I have previously stated, I will continue to listen to views on the issue as we move towards stage 2. Additionally, the bill will provide the information on bus services available to passengers helping them to plan their journeys. That is something that we know people want, and it will make bus travel more accessible and attractive. I will give way to Mr Rumbles. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. It would be helpful if he could—I am pleased that he is going to be willing to look at the issue—to outline what he thinks the objections are to local authorities running commercially profitable routes. The member will be aware that there are concerns within the bus industry and itself about the commercial viability of some routes and the potential impact that routes could have on existing bus operators. However, as I have said, I am open to considering further measures that could help to improve bus services at a local level, including the very issue that the member has raised and has been highlighted by the committee. As well as providing clearer information about bus services, passengers expect a simple ticketing offer. For smart ticketing, the bill will help to accelerate its implementation. It supports local authorities and operators to go further and faster in delivering multimodal smart ticketing arrangements, underpinned by consistent national standards. The Government is clear that partnership between authorities and operators to address local ticketing needs is the most effective approach in a deregulated bus market. I am aware that there was support for this approach from various witnesses before the league committee at stage 1. Turning now to the parking provisions, I am sure that we all want to make sure that our pavements and roads are accessible for all, particularly those with mobility considerations. It is therefore welcome that there appears to be cross-party support for the principle of pavement and double parking prohibitions in the bill. There has been some debate over the course of stage 1 about specifics such as the process for exempting streets and exemption criteria for delivery vehicles. The Government has aimed to seek to strike a sensible balance on such details. We are still listening to views coming forward, and I am sure that we will hear more of that this afternoon. I will give way to Mr Mason. John Mason, I thank him very much for giving way. Would you accept that there are quite a lot of streets in the cities where there just is not enough room for all that we would like to do? If the pavements are fairly wide and the roads are fairly narrow, it actually makes sense for cars to park with two wheels in the pavement. I recognise that. There are, particularly in some of our cities where the streets are too narrow for vehicles on both sides of the road to be able to park and allow other vehicles to be able to pass through those areas. That is why the provisions in the bill have been set in such a way to allow local authorities to be able to exempt particular areas from the prohibition that will be set in the bill in order to give recognition to that particular problem. I am more than happy to give way to Sandra White. I would ask that, if the exemptions are going to be made by local authorities, would they be able to consult in the bill with the local communities to come to an agreement that is best for both? There is a provision for local authorities to undertake the process, which would include consulting with local communities on those matters and other important partners. For example, emergency services would have a clear interest in those matters to ensure that they are able to express their views on that type of exemption process. I am also grateful to the lead committee's reflections that our provisions on roadworks will provide a positive framework and improve quality, safety and performance. Likewise, for its endorsement of our proposal to give regional transport partnerships more flexibility. On the issue of canals, the Scottish Government has set out in our response to the committee's report the wider measures that we are taking forward to improve such waterways in addition to the provisions that are contained in the bill. On workplace parking levees, those are not currently in the bill but have attracted significant interest in recent weeks. The Government has given a commitment to support and agreed Green Party amendment at stage 2 to create a discretionary power for local authorities to introduce those should they wish to do so. Our support here is contingent on the exclusion of hospitals and NHS premises. That will be a local levee, and it will be a matter for local authorities to decide where they wish to consider introducing it in their areas in the future. There will be no pressure from the Scottish Government to do so. The Scottish Government recognises that the lead committee will wish to give itself adequate time at stage 2 to scrutinise such an amendment, including by taking evidence from stakeholders. We, of course, will support the committee in whichever way we can to accommodate that requirement. The fact that I've cantered through a range of topics in the opening remarks just highlights the multitude of areas that the legislation touches upon. However, I look forward to hearing the views of members across the chamber this afternoon, and I would call upon the chamber to support the general principles of a Transport Scotland bill this evening. I call on Edward Mountain to open on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Edward Mountain. I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate in my capacity as convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. The committee's stage 1 report on the Transport Scotland bill was published on 7 March. I thank the cabinet secretary for his letter of 1 April, in which he provided the Scottish Government's response to those recommendations. In the very limited time available, I will be only able to cover a brief selection of the issues raised by the committee in its report. It's unfortunate that we have less time available to debate the wide range of detailed and very complex transport issues that are covered in the bill than we had to discuss the South of Scotland enterprise bill last week, a single-issue bill on which there was broad support across the chamber. At the outset, I should say that the committee is aware that the Scottish Government has announced, as it has reaffirmed today, that it is to support a Scottish Green Party amendment at stage 2 of the bill. The amendment on the granting of powers for local authorities to introduce a working place parking levy. The committee has agreed a timetable for stage 2 consideration, which we believe will allow us to take oral evidence on the amendment once the actual amendment containing the full details is lodged. However, for the purposes of this debate, I think that it's right that, if you'll excuse the pun, we part this issue and discuss the many issues that appear on the bill as drafted. Moving on to the committee's consideration of the bill, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all those who gave up their time to give evidence at committee meetings and to attend conference calls and to those who attended an evening committee event here in the Parliament and those of the many that submitted written submissions to the committee. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the clerks who supported the committee with professionalism at a time of a very heavy workload and a shortage of team members. I'd like to look specifically to the proposals in the bill and firstly to look at low emission zones. The committee is of the view that the effective introduction of low emission zones will require steps to be taken in advance to provide improvements in public transport provision and to put in place measures such as park and ride facilities and improved active travel opportunities. In its response, the Scottish Government has indicated that it agrees with the committee on this point and that such issues will be addressed in the LEZ guidance. That, we believe, is to be welcomed. The introduction of LEZ must be part of a co-ordinated package of measures if the behavioural change that is required is to be achieved. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's agreement of the committee's recommendation that there will be a national consistent emission standards and exemptions set out in the regulations. I note that emission standards are likely to be Euro 6 for diesel and Euro class 4 for petrol. I also note that the Scottish Government agrees with the committee that nationally consistent signage should be used for all LEZs. Finally on LEZs, the committee acknowledges in its report that the financial burden that might be faced by businesses and individual motorists should they need to upgrade or replace vehicles to meet the necessary emission standards. It noted in particular that this would be likely to present a particularly challenge to those on lower incomes. I note that the Scottish Government will create a low emission zone support fund that will target those commercial and private vehicle owners who will have the most difficulty in making the transition to LEZ-compliant vehicles. That is welcomed and, in my view, is a necessary step if we are to incentivise road users to comply with LEZs. Turning to bus services, in its report, the committee acknowledged the widespread concern with the decline in bus use across Scotland. However, the committee notes the concerns expressed by several stakeholders in evidence that the bus service provisions in the bill are unlikely to make a marked difference in stopping the decline in bus use. The committee is concerned that, although many of those provisions are broadly considered to be positive steps, the reality may be that few of them will be taken up in practice due to the lack of financial resources to facilitate their set-up and operation. The Scottish Government clearly disagrees with that view and, although I can understand that it wants to remain positive about the proposals in the bill, the broad message that the committee received from local authorities and others that those proposals were underwhelming and unlikely to deliver any significant improvement. I am sure that other committee members will comment further on the bus services provision later in the date. On smart ticketing, the committee is concerned that the provisions in the bill to introduce a national smart ticketing standards lack ambition and that an opportunity has been missed to deliver a meaningful step change in integrated public transport provision in Scotland. Based on the evidence that it heard, the committee is of the view that this can only be achieved through the introduction of a single ticketing scheme that is operating across all modes of transport. The Scottish Government has responded very robustly on the issue, effectively ruling it out on the grounds of cost and an assertion that that would require a restructuring of the bus market. However, what was made clear to the committee was that progress in this area amongst transport operators has been painfully slow. It remains to be seen if, past, the proposals in the bill will result in any tangible progress being made. Turning to pavement and double parking, although the committee welcomes the proposals in the bill to prohibit pavement and double parking, it expressed concerns that the appropriateness of the exemption will allow 20 minutes for loading and unloading of deliveries. Therefore, it called on the Scottish Government to bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to remove the exemption and for a more appropriate and workable mechanism to be developed and included in guidance. However, the Government has said that it considers that removing the exemption would enable loading and unloading for an unspecified and unlimited length of time. This technically may be the case, but it does not respond to the committee's concerns that the exemption proposals, as drafted, would present innumerable practical and enforcement difficulties. I urge the cabinet secretary to rethink this position on this matter before stage 2. On dropped kerbs, during the stage 1 scrutiny, the committee discussed the issue of parking across dropped kerbs at pedestrian and other recognised crossing places. It felt that this was a significant barrier to the accessibility of urban streets. The committee therefore called on the Scottish Government to bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to prohibit the practice. It is encouraging that the Scottish Government is currently considering the most appropriate legislative route for addressing the issue. However, I urge it to accelerate its considerations and to bring forward a suitable amendment in this bill to complete what would be a very welcome package of parking prohibitions that would comprehensively enhance accessibility in urban areas. Presiding Officer, in the time available, I have only been able to skim the surface of the many issues covered in the committee's stage 1 report. I hope that my fellow committee members will take the opportunity to discuss further elements of the report when they make their contributions. In conclusion, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the general principles of the Transport Scotland bill be agreed to. However, we look forward to stage 2 and consider considering the many proposals that are made for its improvement. It is a pleasure to open the stage 1 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I can also add my thanks to the clerks, my fellow committee members, as many of them are here today, but also the many stakeholders that I have met over the past few months who shared their views and opinions on the bill. That also includes the transport secretary and his team, who have been very helpful in those discussions. Since the Transport Scotland Act 2005 was passed, more people now own and operate cars. Our buses have seen decreases in patronage and the emergence of the gig economy has changed our driving habits and our economy. Equally so, since 2005, there has been a renewed focus on our domestic and international obligations to tackle climate change. From the outset, those benches will support the bill at stage 1. We agree with the general principles of what the bill is trying to achieve, although in many ways, we do not think that the bill goes far enough to tackle many of the overarching issues, which we think faces Scotland's transport networks. If you are watching this debate and are hoping to hear us discuss a groundbreaking flagship piece of legislation that the Government has brought forward that will transform how Scotland is connected or how it will radically address shortcomings in rail, road, bus, marine or indeed aviation, or how this Parliament intends to revolutionise how we transport goods, people or produce, or you are welcome to stay tuned, but you equally may wish to change channels. The bill overall tinkers with existing legislation and proposes fairly benign new powers as it is currently drafted. It is all very necessary, perhaps, but it does not exactly push the limits of policy imagination. There is little on the long-term plans to improve community travel and transport, particularly amongst our elderly populations and rural communities. There is little that develops sustainable, non-concessionary travel frameworks or anything that proposes to deliver dramatic improvements to our railways, ferries or a radical overhaul of the state of Scotland's roads. That all being said, and to be constructive, let me address my own thoughts on this bill. Part 1, at low emission zones. We think that air quality remains an issue in our cities. It lowers life expectancy and puts huge pressures on our health service. In that respect, we agree that there is a need for low emission zones. However, there are significant issues that have been raised with the current proposal. The committee took evidence on that and, in private consultations that I have had with stakeholders, a number of people are rightfully concerned. Not least those who will be least likely to afford to have to upgrade to new Euro 6 compliant diesel cars. Not least those small businesses who use vans, which are often purchased rather than leased, who need them to go back to their business. Not least those who live outside of the cities in rural Scotland. They often drive diesel cars or agricultural vehicles and often sweat their assets much longer than those in cities. What about those who find themselves living within a zone and will be penalised simply for going about their everyday business, taking the kids to school, commuting to work? If public transport was universally perfect, there would be no need for a car. In an ideal world, there would be no need for a low emission zone, but we live in the real world. Businesses are concerned and we ought to listen to them. Industries such as the bus and taxi industries have raised concerns over the costs of operating within the zones and the costs of purchasing compliant vehicles. Electric powered taxis cost £60,000. The committee's stage 1 report made explicit reference to this. It says, "...eleases should not be introduced unless appropriate steps are taken in advance to provide improvements in public transport and to put in place measures such as park and ride and improve active travel opportunities." I agree, but that is not what is in the bill. Those benches want to see some clarity over national standards. Yes, let's leave the geography and the operating hours at a local level, but let's avoid confusion for business by having multiple and distinct schemes with conflicting standards. We would like to see a clear timetable for introduction of the schemes with phased implementation, which gives everybody time to plan and transition to the new world. We would like to see appropriate incentives to take up and encourage use of ultra-low-emission vehicles or low-emission-zone compliant vehicles. Let's have a proper look at exemptions. Is it wise that the disabled, blue bad shoulders or arm of vulnerable travers will have to pay to make vital journeys into our cities for health appointments or, indeed, to tackle social isolation? Support for residents residing within zones. Let's enhance public transport opportunities within zones and we may be seeking to lodge amendments to that effect. Other areas outside of low-emission zones have not gained as much media attention as the bill has progressed, but they are important nonetheless. The first is local bus franchising. I think that there is a role for local bus franchising. I don't think that it's a decision that should be made by anyone but local authorities. They are the ones, after all, who will have to be transparent and open to their local taxpayers about how that money is spent, but I do share concerns that the current provisions in the bill only allow them to operate where there is an unmet need. I think that that is severely limiting. I'm pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary addressed that in his opening remarks, but the reality is that how many local authorities really have the money to set up depots, to lease buses, to hire drivers and to pay the pension pots? Even if they did have the money to do that, what happens when a commercial operator comes along and says, I want to operate on that route too? There are so many unanswered questions as the bill is drafted, but the main one is does the bill go far enough in this respect? On some other issues that the bill addresses, such as smart ticketing, I think that there are some good initiatives here. The issue around the standardisation of technical standards is a wise thing to do, but really it falls dramatically short of introducing what I think we should have, which is a fully interconnected ticketing network, the likes of which so many other countries benefit from. In short, I'm afraid, I think that the Government has really missed a trick here. On the issue of roadworks, there's not much to disagree with, but we heed the committee's warnings that local authority finance and resource remain a significant barrier to ensuring compliance. One of the contentious issues that has arisen is that of double pavement parking. Pavement parking is an issue in Scotland, and we know that. It affects those who use our pavements, people with disabilities, people with pushchairs, in wheelchairs, the visually impaired and the struggling to get past cars who've parked inappropriately. Equally, it is also a widespread practice, which, as John Mason alluded to, is a necessity on so many roads. We haven't talked enough about the issue of displacement. If you move those cars off the pavement and onto the road, where do they go? I hear that there will be powers for local authorities to exempt roads, but how many have done the mapping exercise that they need to do? How much time do they have to do that? How much resource do they have to do that? I don't think that the top-down approach that the bill is taking is the right way. I have very limited time, I'm sorry. I think that the best way to do this is to empower local authorities to ban the practice where it needs to be stopped. It is all about empowering local authorities who know their streets and their communities best, and I don't think that the top-down approach is the right one. My closing seconds, Presiding Officer, is a shame that we didn't have more time to debate this bill, but I need to talk about the workforce parking levy. It would be remiss of me not to. I vociferously campaigned that this amendment should have been brought into the bill at stage 1, so that evidence could have been taken and it could have been added to the stage 1 report. The view from those benches is very simple. This is an ill thought through regressive tax on Scotland's workforce, and we will oppose it at every stage of the proceedings. Presiding Officer, there is a lot to be positive about in this bill. We will approach it constructively in terms of amendments, but there are areas that need improvement. The stage 1 report was robust and in-depth. I look forward to progressing this bill through Parliament and to taking a construct part in future debates on it. I look with great interest to hear comments made today. Imagine a transport system where our transport agencies had the powers to properly regulate public transport in their area and deliver a genuinely integrated transport system. Imagine a transport system where local communities could establish their own municipal bus companies without restrictions so passengers, not profits, were put first and any circumstances were reinvested in better bus services, not shareholders' dividends. Imagine a transport system where you could board a bus, use your bank card to buy a ticket for that bus and to connect and train, and no matter how many times you made that journey that week, it would calculate the cheapest fare for you. Presiding Officer, you can imagine all those things, but this transport bill will not deliver any of them. It is a bill whose tibidness is matched only by the Scottish Government's response to the Wreck Committee's stage 1 report. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary made clear in his opening comments that that response is just the start of the Government's thinking on changes and not its final word. That stage 1 report captured a range of views across many stakeholders, and their views deserve to be properly considered as this bill passes through Parliament. Although there are aspects of the bill that exist that I welcome, and I am glad that the Scottish Government has, for example, set out a legislative framework for low-emission zones. It proposed a ban on pavement in double parking. It increased the powers of the roadworks commissioner, and, after opposing not one but two Labour member's bills on the subject, the bill plans to introduce some element of regulation to our bus network. In too many accounts, the bill lacks ambition. The mandatory minimum-grace period for LEZs and the length of the maximum period, along with the lack of a clear definition of an LEZ, could end up slowing down the change that is needed to tackle air pollution. The loop holes in the ban on pavement parking such as allowing 20 minutes for delivery and loading risk undermining the aims entirely. On buses, the bill tinkers around the edges of a failed deregulated system where our bus network is being dismantled route by route across Scotland. Since the SNP came to power, the number of bus journeys in Scotland has fallen by 20 per cent while bus fares have risen by 17 per cent in real terms. There are many reasons for that decline, changing work patterns and growing congestion, but decisions made by this Government have contributed. The bus service operator grant has been reduced by 28 per cent under the SNP and has been in overall—I will take an intervention for Mr Stevenson yet. The member describes falling patronage, etc. Can the member give us the equivalent numbers for Welsh Government bus patronage and support, where Labour is in part? I can tell Mr Stevenson that the equivalent fall in the last few years in Scotland has been 8 per cent and in the rest of the UK it has been 5 per cent. However, I have to also say, and the important point is, that the bill will do nothing, nothing whatsoever to reverse that decline. A point that Mr Stevenson agrees with, because it is in the Wreck Committee report that he agreed to. One of the other contributing factors to the fall in bus usage has been the cuts in recent years to council budgets, cuts that are leading to yet more reductions in support for bus services across Scotland. As I said, the bill will do nothing to reverse the decline in bus passengers numbers. It will do nothing to drive up standards in the sector, strengthen passenger rights or workers' terms and conditions. It will not improve affordability or tackle transport poverty. It will not properly promote community transport and, crucially, it will not lift the ban introduced by Margaret Thatcher preventing local authorities from competing to run bus services. The limited measures on franchising and partnership are welcome, but we need radical changes to the way buses are run in Scotland to protect the lifeline services that are currently being axed and to stop the big bus companies simply cherry picking the most profitable routes. That means allowing our local councils to set up and run local bus companies to meet their community needs without the restrictions that the bill places on them. It means ensuring that, when changes to bus routes are proposed, they will only be allowed after proper consultation with passengers and agreement by the traffic commissioner. It means putting a stop to the race to the bottom in the way staff are treated. If a company wants to receive public money for delivering services, they should be paying their workers a decent wage and delivering proper terms and conditions. It means ending rip-off fares, not just setting up an advisory board on smart ticketing, but giving that board a legally binding remit to deliver a single ticketing scheme across Scotland and across transport modes. It means properly investing in our buses, not imposing a £230 million real-term cut in the local council budgets needed to make that investment, as the Government's recent budget does. If Labour believes that public transport is a public service and that it wants to improve an environment, it needs to properly fund that public transport. However, what will not protect an environment are the proposals for a so-called workplace parking levy, in particular one that is an afterthought being introduced at stage 2 of the bill. I am grateful for the member for taking intervention at that point. Was that his position when his councillor colleagues in Glasgow and Edinburgh had it as part of their local authority manifestos? Colin Smyth One of the deep concerns that I have about this proposal and why this Parliament needs to make a decision first is because, under those proposals, if a car parking tax was introduced by Edinburgh, which Mr Finlay is suggesting, thousands of workers might constitutes live in Midlothian, the Borders, South Lanarkshire and Dumfries and Galloway, many on low incomes priced out of the housing market in Edinburgh, even if they wanted to live there, they would have to pay the tax, because they have no choice but to use their car to get to work. However, they and their local councillors will not have a say on whether or not that tax is introduced in Edinburgh. Not a penny raised will be spent on public transport in Midlothian or the south of Scotland. That is a point on a flaw in Mr Finlay's proposals when, eventually, we get to see the proposals that are being hidden from us by this Government. The budget deal that has been done will mean that someone on £124,000 a year is getting a cut in their income tax, at the same time as a regressive car parking tax is being introduced, but a company boss will pay the same as a company cleaner. Where the chief executive of a health board on more than £100,000 a year will be exempt, but a carer working in a hospice on the living wage will have to stump up their figures. I will quote the trade unions here and Mr Finlay may want to listen to the trade unions. No-one on a unison says that it devalues council workers and other staff who deliver vital services. No-one under the GMB says that it is an attack on the take-home pay of workers. No-one under the United States says that it is a desperate attempt to absolve the Government from the funding crisis that they have presided over. No-one under Asleth says that it is a burden on workers. I make no apologies for being on the side of workers in this debate, because they are being forgotten by the SNP and Green. Labour will oppose the workplace package levy, which is simply allowing the rich to pay to pollute. In support of the principles of the bill today, we serve notice that we plan to bring forward a series of amendments to improve the bill, some of which I will cover in my closing speech at the end of the debate. I hope that when we do bring forward those amendments, the Government will move beyond the response to the REC Committee stage 1 report and work across Parliament to make the significant improvements that the bill needs. John Finnie Doverham for the Green Party I thank the people who have contributed to this, our witnesses, our staff and the many organisations who have provided briefings for the bill, which, at decision time, the Scottish Green Party will support. A transport bill should be seen as an opportunity and should be viewed as a longer-term vision, bringing about policy coherence not just within the transport portfolio but across the transport portfolio. I have to say that I get no sense of crusading in the part of the Scottish Government with this. The cabinet secretary did say that it was aspirational and he talked about the transport jigsaw. I have to say that I prefer the approach of people like the poverty alliance in Oxfam, who posed the question, what would an ideal transport system look like? Well, some of the provisions in this would clearly contribute towards an ideal transport system, we are way short of that. This is a piecemeal bill, it is conservative and outlook and will be amended. Again, the cabinet secretary referred to a national transport strategy, and that is to be welcomed. I look forward to seeing that and I am sure that there will be a lot of interesting contributions. Transport Scotland transformed Scotland, a bigger part, in its submission, to address issues such as congestion, which all my colleagues acknowledge are an issue. However, what does not affect congestion is the means of propulsion of a vehicle, so everyone's enthusiasm to replace diesel oil originally petrol with diesel and now diesel with electricity is not the answer. What the Scottish Government does see in its documents that supports the bill is that transport is a key facilitator in societal improvement and cohesion. I want to say that the bill will have a positive impact on the Scottish Government's purpose to create a more successful country. I think that that is a significant leap on the basis of what we have in front of us, because far too many of the policies, transport policies, are about reinforcing the status quo. The market still prevails on the bill as regards bus transport. It will be private profit. Public penalty in as much as what we know is that local authorities, hard-pressed local authorities, will be able to pick up the scraps. Road building is the priority of the Scottish Government, and it needs other parties. It is just part of the on-going concession that there is to the motoring lobby. Of course, if you do that, you ignore the needs of 30 per cent of households who do not own a motor car. What we do know from the policy memorandum of the Scottish Government's own facts and figures is that buses contribute about 5 per cent of road transport emissions, and cars contribute 60 per cent. We also know that three quarters of public transport journeys in Scotland are undertaken by buses. Much is made of Lothian buses, and I am delighted that they now have 100-seat buses on the go. It is publicly owned and run. The beneficiaries of Lothian buses are the residents in the city of Edinburgh and surrounding areas. Buses, of course, are vital for people going to the work to school, to college, to hospital, to shops, to visit friends and family. As has been said already, by other contributors, people are faced with cuts to routes, poor services and fair hikes, and there are decades of decline in partitions. It would be entirely wrong to lay it all at the door of the present Government. That has happened since the 60s, and people have alluded to many of the reasons why that is the case. Transport has a very Freudian slick. Transformed Scotland quotes the key PNG research on decline, and it talks about congestion and its impact on journey times, reliability and costs, the impact of parking, lifestyle changes that have been alluded to, and, of course, the relatively low cost of car use. We see declining revenue from Government for the bus industry and rising costs. What would help, of course, is bus priority measures and low-emission zones. Again, there has been much negative talk about low-emission zones, but there has been little talk of the 40,000 lives in the UK that are lost directly attributable to poor air quality. That is not just poor air quality in the centres of our major city. I have constantly reminded residents in the town of Inverness where I live that one of their streets has such poor quality that it has to be constantly monitored. The idea of encouraging more people to come in clearly does not make sense. We know that progressive countries are the countries that are seeking to have vibrant town centres where people can live, work and enjoy, where the motor car does not rule. There is a danger that it could get bogged down in the workplace car park in Levy and discuss hypotheticals. We have already heard rank hypocrisy from two of the parties in relation to the issue. I dare say that that is likely to continue. What we do know about bus use in Edinburgh is a very fine model to talk about. We know that Edinburgh bucks the trend in many respects, not just in relation to ownership, not just in relation to the range of routes and availability, but the nature of the passengers that use Edinburgh buses. Buses are used by poor people and cars are used by people who have got money. That is why we have seen decade after decade of assistance given to the motoring industry. At the expense of the bus industry, we know that in Edinburgh it is a wide range of people who use the bus network. Again, back to the poverty alliance in Oxfam, we talk about the critical role that transport pays in people's experience in poverty, in terms of supporting their ability to increase their income and the significant and important costs that it has. Affordability is another thing that is very important. There are many aspects to the bill that are positive. It lacks ambition and the Scottish Green Party will seek to inject some ambition at stage 2. Let me state from the outset that I believe that this bill is important and that the Liberal Democrats will be supporting it at decision time later this afternoon. The Government does have great intentions with this bill and tries to address some major transport issues from the introduction of lower-emission zones to the state of our bus services to national ticketing arrangements to the banning of pavement parking. What it so far does not do is address the contentious issue of a workplace parking charge, and that, of course, as we have heard, is missing from the bill as it stands. However, we are told by the Government that it will appear at stage 2 even if it did not appear at the important stage 1 evidence Government. I am more than happy to give away, but not just yet. Let me turn to lower-emission zones first of all. If we are serious about creating effective lower-emission zones in our cities, we must ensure that steps are taken before their introduction to improve public transport provision in the areas that are affected. While the Government agrees with that, it basically says over-to-you local authorities. We must also ensure that there must be consistency across the country as to which vehicles may enter in Ellie's Ed to avoid confusion and encourage compliance with the regulations. I am pleased to see that the Government accepts this point in its response to the committee's report. I will now turn to the actions that are needed in the bill to arrest the general decline in bus use. It is not just poor people who use buses. I use buses every day. Lots of people use buses, not just the poor. The bill will be a great opportunity to tackle the issue. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the cabinet secretary that, on this issue, the Government has been ambitious with the bill. I agree with John Finnie on this point. He said that it is not exactly a crusading bill. On the one hand, the Government wishes to amend the 85 act to allow local authorities to set up their own bus services. On the face of it, it is a very good idea. However, we have the curious position of the Government saying to our local authorities that they can set up their own bus company, but there are no more resources available for them to do it. By the way, they can only run their buses on unprofitable routes, and if those routes become profitable, they will have to hand them over to the commercial bus companies. What local authority is going to do that? We asked this question in committee, and we are still waiting to find out. I personally cannot see any local authority taking this offer in the bill, so, in our view, this is a missed opportunity. This proposal in the bill looks good, but, on detailed examination, to paraphrase someone else, nothing will change. Franchising seems to me to offer a better way forward. However, I am not so convinced about the need to have an independent panel to oversee local transport authorities. Local democratic control of this process, it seems to us, is important, and I am not convinced that our local authorities having this additional hoop to jump through is the right way to go. In the short time left to me, I want to focus on the part of the bill, which deals with pavement parking and the yet unseen proposal for a workplace parking charge. A ban on pavement parking in the bill is most welcome. However, I do have real concerns that the Government has in section 47, section 6C, exceptions to the parking provisions, provided a real get-out clause that makes it legal for the first time to obstruct the pavement when loading and unloading for a period of 20 minutes. That one provision means, in reality, that this attempt to ban the obstruction of our pavements will be hopelessly ineffective. Is it therefore the Lib Dem policy that there should be no exemptions to double parking? If so, how on earth is it expected to get out of taxes? I am talking about obstructing our pavements. That is what I am talking about. The committee in our report makes it clear that it is concerned that the 20 minutes for loading and unloading deliveries may have the unintended consequences of creating a national exemption for pavement parking by commercial vehicles. That is our concern, minister. Can you imagine how it would be impossible to enforce the law when vehicles are allowed to load and unload? That exemption does, in our view, make a mockery of the intention behind that part of the bill. I urge the Government to think again on that proposed exemption. Can the member clarify whether his view that there should be no exemption at all or that the 20-minute period is too long a period for the exemption to apply? The evidence that we have received in committee is that whatever amount of minutes that you have put on there is going to be impossible to enforce. At the moment, the law says that you cannot park. You cannot obstruct the pavements. That is what the law says now. Exactly. However, if the minister wanted to come forward and say that there could be an exemption, if a certain amount of space was left on the pavement, that would be another matter. I want to address the unique situation that we are in over the proposed workplace parking level. We have a situation where the Scottish Government will whip its MSPs to support an amendment to the bill, which its MSPs have not even seen. Indeed, no member—I would live to if I had time— I am afraid that there is only about a minute left at the top. Okay. I am sorry, I cannot. Last minute. It is MSPs—indeed, no member of the committee has seen it, and I understand that not even a green MSP has seen it for a green amendment. When the committee eventually sees the amendment, no matter what the evidence is presented, the majority of the committee members—all the SNP and the green members—are being told that they must vote for it. No matter what the drafting problems that may be found, no matter what the unintended consequences that are found by details scrutiny of this legislation, the committee will be voted through. I have a lot of respect for the minister, and I have considered Michael Matheson to be a responsible minister. I do not blame him for this issue. This has been foisted on him, but it is no way to pass legislation. A responsible Government would not behave in this way, and I never thought that our strong committee system, established in 1999, would ever end up being misused like this. Thank you very much, and we enter the open part of the debate. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Peter Chapman. Let me start by declaring my honorary presidency of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, which is a keen interest in the topic area before us. I want to start on where the Labour Party is coming for buses and the desire for probably every council in Scotland to take over the running of bus services. I want to talk about some of the financial implications of that. I previously talked about the financial implications for the bus pass proposals for under-25s. Those proposals are equally improbable. First, the general principle is that if you take away a franchise to do business from a business, you have to compensate that business with one year's revenue—not one year's profit, but one year's revenue. That is £700 million or £800 million straight away. The next thing is to have a look at the accounts of Edinburgh buses, because that gives us an excellent company. Let me immediately say that. Indeed, my great-uncle Alec was the Cabinet holder in the Edinburgh council 100 years ago, who is responsible for that, so it probably is down to him. Anyway, the accounts for Lothian buses, what is the capitalisation of Lothian buses, which covers about 10 per cent of Scotland's population? The answer is in the accounts for 3 December 2017 for £147 million. If I factor that up—it is a crude way to do it, which is capable of delicacy—and I accept that, but I have nothing better—it becomes £1.5 billion, and you add to £700 billion, and we are talking £2.2 billion. I accept that. That is the top ceiling that you almost certainly would not reach and could not exceed, but it illustrates that the general point is that there are a lot of numbers to look at, and there has been almost no talk about numbers. There is a profit that the dividend comes back. Of course, there is, but you need the capitalisation in the first place to deal with it. It is also worth saying that, of course, you have to buy some vehicles or buy them from the existing bus companies. I suspect that they would not get a huge discount from the existing bus companies for whom it would, in effect, be a forced sale. I asked the Labour Party—Bafflein, Tautier to pursue, to bring forward some numbers that are based on something more than my bluntly, about 20-minutes research, just some way of picking up the accounts of Lothian buses and Exxon company. I repeat once again, and I too, from time to time, use them with my bus bus. Bus service improvement partnerships and the proposals in the bill—I do so—yes, I will. Colin Smyth. The member has just effectively slated the idea of local authorities being able to set up bus companies unrestricted. Does he support the Government's plan that they should be allowed to set up bus companies to only meet unmet need, and exactly how many local authorities you think are going to do that? Stuart Stevenson. I am very clear that the Government's proposals are good proposals that are worthy of support. We have other proposals coming from the Labour Party, which I do not close my mind to. Let me just say to the member that that is the case, but I point out to him that to gain support across the Parliament, he will have to provide some numbers of the investment that required, the capitalisation, the liabilities that would be taken on, particularly in relation to pensions as you to pay across people from the commercial companies. I urge the member simply to bring numbers forward. Then he may persuade more of us who are yet to be persuaded. The bus improvement partnerships, I think that it is fair to say that the previous provisions, the voluntary and compulsory partnerships have not really delivered, as I think that we all hope in the passage of the previous bill. Looking at the new proposals, I know that the bus companies are cautiously supportive of them, and that is probably reasonable. I am certainly prepared to be cautiously supportive of them as well. I think that we can do more on bus lanes. We make them all 24 hours a day, and we make them compulsory and we enforce them better. Then you would get consistent bus journey times and people would rely on buses more. It is important that we do on parking that we respect the needs of those with reduced mobility and, in particular, with people who are blind, who may walk into vehicles that are parked on pavements that they simply do not see and dropped kerbs on an issue as well, because blind people need a very clear delineation between pavement and road. On the subject of loading and unloading, I will make a rather obvious suggestion that you should only be able to load and unload if you have an indicator on your screen that is adjusted to show the time that you started parking. That is done in other countries, by the way, so there is nothing particularly novel about—I am in my last minute, do forgive me. Finally, just a little bit on the workplace parking. I, like others, have not seen it, and the whips have not approached me to tell me what I have to say or do on the subject. As yet, what I will say to you, however, is that there are different ways of introducing that. I encourage Mr Finnie to think about it. Anything that puts a cost on individual citizens is reluctant. Anything that puts a cost on those who have to provide the parking, I might be prepared to support. In other words, if it is a charge on companies, fair enough, if it is a charge on individuals, it is a much more difficult ask for me. That is an excellent bill that I have no hesitation in saying that I will be supporting in coming decision time tonight. I wanted to open up, as my other committee colleagues have, by thanking the clerks and everyone who attended the committee during evidence sessions to help to write that report. It is clear across this chamber that, although we all appreciate what this bill is trying to do, on the whole it lacks ambition and it will need to be amended as it proceeds to achieve its aims. However, I agree with the general principles of this bill. Climate change and air quality have been discussed numerous times in this chamber over the past two weeks alone, and they are key drivers of this bill. This is a large bill covering six main aspects relating to transport. Time will not allow me to comment on all six, but I will discuss low-emission zones and bus services. Part 1 of the bill creates a legal right for local authorities to establish, operate, amend and revoke low-emission zones. This is a key instrument within the bill to reduce congestion and improve air quality in Scotland's four main cities, including, of course, Dundee and Aberdeen in the north-east region, which I represent. A low-emission zone would restrict vehicles within the LEZ to those that meet specified emissions standards. Anyone who drives a car within an LEZ that does not meet the standard or is exempt will be fined. However, this bill lacks clarity and needs a clear definition of what an LEZ is and what its objectives should be. It will be necessary for the Scottish Government to bring forward an appropriate amendment at stage 2 to allow clarity. Effective introductions of LEZs will require improvements to public transport provision, measures such as park and ride facilities and improved active travel opportunities will need to be put in place. Educating the public of why a zone is important and the benefits it will deliver will be essential, in my opinion, to get drivers to buy into the concept. There must also be a robust appeals process to address queries on penalties and circumstances when drivers require to access the zone in an emergency situation. To avoid confusion and encourage compliance, there must be consistently across the country as to which vehicles can enter an LEZ. The regulations must clearly set out minimum technical emissions standards. Standardised signage and a comprehensive package of information must be provided by local authorities at all stages of introduction to allow people to have sufficient time to prepare for the changes. There will be a cost implication for business and individual motorists should they need to upgrade their vehicles. As is often the case, that will impact most heavily on those on lower incomes. Part 2 of the bill addresses issues around bus services and focuses on concern about the long-term decline in bus use across Scotland. This decline is being driven by many factors, including the reduction in direct bus support in rural areas and congestion in towns. The lack of appropriate infrastructure such as bus lanes is leading to slow average speeds and long and slow journeys. The current provisions in the bill allowing councils to run their own bus services will not, in my opinion, deliver. We heard during evidence sessions that few local authorities are likely to have financial resources or the expertise to take advantage of the options set out in the bill. Indeed, Aberdeenshire Council has just recently axed several services in rural areas due to lack of funding. The bill would amend the 1985 Transport Act to allow a local authority to provide local bus services where this is an unmet public transport need. The committee felt that this was too restrictive and recommended an amendment at stage 2 to allow greater flexibility. However, I disagreed with that, because if councils can get involved where there is already adequate bus provision, they may trigger a bus war with the company that is already supplying the services, and the bus war was, in my opinion, never end well. The bill proposes replacing statutory bus quality partnership with a BSIP, which involves two elements. The change is generally welcomed, but local authorities question whether they will be able to take up a partnership due to constraints on time and resources. Further information has thankfully been provided by the Scottish Government, which clears up some of the confusion about how BSIPs will work in practice and how they will differ from the previous scheme. However, this clarity is lacking in the bill as drafted. Another initiative that is allowed within the bill is bus service franchising. However, in practice, it was felt that only a small number of local authorities would have the time or resources to establish a framework. It is obvious to me that the uptake of many of the various schemes on offer in this bill for bus services will only happen if the Government is prepared to put additional funds at the disposal of councils. Other sections of this bill that I have not had time to discuss cover smart ticketing schemes, pavement parking, roadworks and canals, and we expect to work with stakeholders during stage 2 to further amend these sections as appropriate. There is also the workplace parking livery, which is due to be added to the bill at stage 2, which will evoke much debate in the committee and which we in the Conservative party will oppose. We can never support taxing people to drive to and park at their work. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how Mr Lyle responds when we discuss this in committee. In closing, the bill has merit, but it is by no means ready to be implemented as legislation. I am committed to working with all committee members at stage 2 to scrutinise all amendments that will strengthen and improve this bill and provide more guidance to local authorities and reassurance to the public and small business owners. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the cabinet secretary said, this is a wide-ranging bill, covering a range of distinct policy areas, but I agree with members that it is not nearly ambitious enough. I want to focus my remarks today on public transport in the sections of the bill relating to how the bus market in this country operates. Scotland's bus market is broken as we accept that bus services are in decline and the deregulated model has failed. Instead of seeing a competitive market for bus services in which fare-paying passengers are in the driving seat, a patchwork of local monopolies has emerged across the country. We know since 2007 that the total number of bus journeys is down by 100 million. We also know that 64 million vehicle kilometres have been stripped out of our bus network. Meanwhile, fares keep on rising and rising more in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. In fact, the relative cost of bus travels increased more than any other mode of land transport over the past 30 years, more than doubled the retail prices index. Presiding Officer, it is clear that we need radical change. It is also clear that only where bus services are run on different principles do bus operators buck the trend. Higher passenger satisfaction, slower rates of decline, more profit reinvested in the bus network. In London, where the bus market is regulated to a high standard, or right here in Edinburgh, as we have heard, where low-dian buses are publicly owned and democratically accountable. The Scottish Government says that the purpose of part 2 of the bill is to ensure that local authorities have viable and flexible options to improve bus services in their areas. If that is to mean anything, then those options must include a realistic route to collective ownership. Local government must have the power to challenge and to replace the broken, failed, deregulated system. Councils and communities must be empowered to form democratically controlled operators and to work with community transport organisations, too. That is why Scottish Labour and co-operative MSPs will seek to amend the bill, to strengthen Scotland's bus laws, to make municipal and common ownership a reality, to promote community transport on the face of the bill, to recognise that bus routes are essentially community assets and that they should be protected as such, and to give passengers and communities who depend on public transport a real say, a people's bus service run for passengers, not profit. If you want to know why this is so important, let me give you an example from my own region. Changes by Glasgow city bus will see the 142 Bishop Briggs circular withdrawn because of a commercial decision taken by a private operator. There has been no consultation or engagement with the community. I would say to members that the problem here is that there are plenty of hurdles that transport authorities have to jump through to provide a subsidised service, but apparently none for privately owned operators looking to withdraw bus services entirely. The local councillor, Alan Moyer, who is arguing that the service should be retained, tells me that 70 per cent of those costs, 70 per cent of those who use this lifeline service, are concessionary card holders. The deregulated market gives no regard to the social impact of withdrawing the 142 bus from this community and many others. That is why we have to shift the powers from the owners of big bus companies to our communities, as Colin Smyth said. Labour will seek to ensure that the hurdles to providing subsidised services through local government are not repeated when it comes to municipal ownership. Local authorities should be allowed to run services as a matter of principle, not just in instances of unmet need. That would allow other parts of the country to benefit from the successful Lothians model where profits are reinvested. It would allow local, publicly owned bus companies to freely compete for any service or franchise that they may be created in the future too. On bus franchising, I have long supported London-style franchising powers coming to local government in Scotland. I believe that those powers should be automatic, but just as the Scottish Government should provide a realistic route to common ownership, it should also provide a realistic route to a London-style system too. On the issue of funding, there have been substantial reforms to the bus service operators grant in England and Wales. 93 million pounds is now paid directly to transport for London in the regulated London market. As a nation, Scotland already subsidises the bus industry to the point that 45 per cent of operators' income comes from the public purse. In addition to funding local government fairly, the Scottish Government should review its funding for bus services to ensure the provisions in this section of the bill are viable. Finally, every Scottish Labour MSP stood on a manifesto that promised that we would make it cheaper and easier to get to work. It is for that reason that we welcome any progress on smart ticketing and integrated public transport. There should be a single multi-mold smart ticketing system that can be used across all modes of public transport in Scotland. It is also because we believe that it should be cheaper and easier to get to work that we cannot support a workplace parking levy. As Colin Smyth said, a regressive levy that workers cannot avoid, a levy that would hit the low-paid hardest. Climate change is one of the great challenges of our time. Vehicle emissions in our city centres are a public health concern, but the solutions do not have to be complicated. We know what the answers are already. What is required is modal shift towards public transport. Low-emissions zones must not exist in isolation. Better bus services will not just enhance public transport but help us to reduce vehicle emissions. For all those reasons, we must seek to strengthen the bill at stage 2 to assert the importance of public transport as a public service. I am not a member of the committee but have appeared before the committee on a number of occasions in regard to my responsible parking bill. I want to thank the committee for listening to me and the people who came along. For the work that they have done in the bill, not just in that particular issue, it has been mentioned before. Very intensive work has been done on the bill. The years that we have been pushing for a responsible parking bill or to be brought into a transport bill has been about 10 years. I am delighted that I am here today to be able to talk on that particular bill. I also want to thank Ross Finnie, previous MSP, who, about nine years ago, first tried to introduce the bill, and then Jo Fitzpatrick afterwards, who introduced his bill too. I took that bill over. Obviously, all the people, many, many, at least 20 various charities and organisations who came together under Living Streets Scotland and the Responsible Parking Alliance. That took in all lots of disability charities and social care charities as well, who did an enormous amount of work and helped me enormously when I was putting forward my bill. I must say that that bill at the time had the largest amount of correspondence back to the consultation. It was one of the biggest correspondence to look into a bill as well. I have listened to the various arguments that went on, not arguments but discussions, and I must admit that I agree with a number of recommendations from the committee, and in particular in regard to the amendment and drop kerbs. I fully endorse what the committee has to say. My original bill did bring drop kerbs into the bill, not just parking as well, and I think that it is something that desperately needs to be looked at. When we were taking evidence in the first part of the bill, and to give a little bit of history, not just when Ross Finnie or Jo Fitzpatrick was putting that forward, we did not have the powers in this Parliament, believe it or not, to put forward anything to do with block kerbs, drop kerbs or any sort of responsible parking. It was not in the Scotland Bill at that particular time. For some reason or another, it just did not come under any form of transport or a bill, and I do thank the Scottish Government and, I believe, Derek Mackay at the time, who brought it forward and eventually adopted it into this transport bill. I think that that was fantastic, and that came through the Smith commission as well. It has been a long, long road to get to this particular point where we can actually look at this properly. People mention the fact that it finds, et cetera, et cetera, but I never envisaged or meant this bill to be punitive in any way. It has got to be more educational, I think, to educate drivers that, basically, payments are for people, not for cars. It has more to do with education, so I am looking forward to going to stage 2 of the bill, and I would hope that there would be an educational part in the bill that would perhaps be on the TV, whatever it may be, but some form of education that lets people know drivers and car owners that this is coming into force and they would be educated upon this. I do not want it to be punitive. I do not believe that there are a number or a huge amount of irresponsible, careless, couldn't care less, selfish drivers out there. I think that most of them are very responsible. It is just a matter of educating to the fact that, if you are blind, and we saw this in evidence, a gentleman who was walking along the street with his stick and happened to tap a car that was parked in the pavement, the white stick broke, and that gentleman was left stranded on that pavement for hours until somebody came along. It is things like that. Even people taking their kids to school or nursery with a pram, a buggy, whatever it may be, have to go on the road. That is dangerous and that should not be allowed to happen. People have to come first before cars, as far as I am concerned. Obviously, the amount of respondents to the questionnaires went out, and 95 per cent were in agreement with that. Pavements are for people. We have roads that are for cars, and it is time that people were educated on that particular piece. That is why drop kerbs are very important. On a number of occasions, people have come along and walked along with pavement, but they cannot go anywhere else because somebody has parked on that drop kerb, and those people want to cross the road. They are disabled, they are blind, they are elderly, or they will get kids in prams. It is about being sensible, but I thank the committee for the amount of work that they have put into that, and for putting up with some of the evidence that I brought forward. I understand that having to load and unload was brought forward by the Horriers Association. It mentioned that at one of the committee meetings that I gave evidence to, but there are areas where it says that there is no loading or only loading. It is a policing of the loading, which I think is really important. If people are getting something delivered, of course they have to deliver it to that place. If a shop is there, they have to get a delivery as well. However, it has to be done sensibly that they do not have them across the whole pavement, and that is educating them more than anything else. I thank you very much for allowing me to speak in this debate, not being a member of the committee, but I certainly look forward to stage 2, stage 3 and having some form of responsible parking where people can walk in the pavements. I thank Donald Cameron for being followed by John Mason. I am grateful to be able to contribute to this stage 1 debate, particularly given that many people who live in the Highlands and Islands see public transport as a lifeline service, not just an alternative to other modes of travel. Indeed, there are many rural and remote communities that especially rely on robust and timely public transport and infrastructure to carry out daily tasks, to get to work, to attend hospital appointments and to connect with friends and family, whether that is people in our island communities who need a ferry service that runs on time and has enough space and capacity for passengers and vehicles, or good local bus services to connect people from rural communities to Scotland's major cities and towns. Strong transport links are plainly good for society and the economy. As other Scottish Conservative colleagues have commented, we support the general principles of the bill, and as many of my colleagues have intimated, we feel that there are a lot of positive elements in the bill, as well as a few missed opportunities. However, in the time available to me, I want to focus on one particular area in which I feel that the bill could address slightly more. That is accessible transport and the need for passengers suffering from disability. Accessible transport is vital for many people across Scotland, particularly the elderly and disabled people, but it is also important for other people, including parents, to travel with young children, for example. The experience of travel is important, too, from travelling to a station or bus stop, interacting with the surroundings in those areas, purchasing tickets to using various facilities. All of those elements are the travelling experience. In my view, they must be viewed through the prism of accessibility. I want to cover a few of those different areas in greater detail. I had the benefit last year of hosting a round table of stakeholders, including the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance, Busy Users Scotland and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland at an event here in Parliament that I organised. The previous transport minister, Humza Yousaf, attended, and I would like to place on record my thanks to him for the interest that he showed in this particular issue. All in all, there are about 20 delegates from a multitude of organisations who have different ideas, considerations and views on how the accessible transport experience in Scotland should look like in the short term and the long term. It was a very valuable experience, and I had hope that some of those suggestions might have been carried forward. One issue that arose was the matter of the design of vehicles. At that round table event, I had various concerns about step access, the size of disabled buttons on new train stock, restrictive loop systems and poorly designed access to toilets. As a result, it may be that, at stage 2, one of the things that the bill can consider is the issue of vehicle design. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its submission to the bill, said that, it recommends that disability access is named as a service standard to which all proposed vehicles used are subject to. I note that the WREC committee in its own summary of recommendations and conclusions stated that, the ability to access transport can play a fundamental role in how a person can contribute to and participate in society and ask the Scottish Government to reflect on and respond to those in detail before stage 2 of the bill. I sincerely hope that the Government does listen to and does act upon that, because it is clearly crucial that people have confidence around the issue going forward. I am particularly concerned about the issue from a local aspect of the matter, which involved the resignation of someone called Arthur Cowey from the chairmanship of the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance. That was over the redesign of trains operating on the West Highland line. I know Arthur well as we worked together in organising the round table that I mentioned earlier, and he is incredibly passionate about accessible transport. His resignation from that role should be noted. In an article in The Scotsman in February, Arthur said this, he said, that recent actions by ScotRail and Transport Scotland have made me realise that I have been wasting my time over the last 40 years in trying to achieve accessible travel, and we have been played for a fool by the transport authorities over this period. I find that a particularly concerning indictment, and I hope that the Government listens to those views going forward with respect to the bill. A couple of other points I would like to make, Presiding Officer. I am concerned that the issue does not address adequately the point about cars parking across dropped curbs. That has been mentioned by Sandra White and others and Edward Mountain on behalf of the committee. Apart from the obvious issue that parking across dropped curbs can cause for most road users, it is particularly inconsiderate and problematic for many elderly and disabled pedestrians who rely heavily on open dropped curbs. I welcome the fact that the Wreck Committee reports that a prohibition of parking across such formally recognised crossing points as distinct from residential driveways would provide a package of measures that would more comprehensively enhance accessibility in urban areas. Again, I hope that the Scottish Government takes cognisance of this. Conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to conclude by saying again that we support the bill at stage 1. We agree that there is a need to adopt new practices and ensure that transport meets our environmental commitments and that we have a long-term plan fit for Scotland today and beyond. We, as a party, will scrutinise the bill going forward, and, as my colleagues who have spoken thus far have suggested, whilst there are areas of the bill that can be improved, we are generally supportive of it. For my part, I hope that greater consideration will be offered to issues around accessibility so that Scotland can indeed lead the way in this crucial area. Ultimately, every individual who uses public transport in Scotland should have the same choice, the same freedom, and the same dignity to travel. I hope that, as the bill progresses, we can make that happen. Thank you very much. I call John Mason to be followed by James Kelly. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In the first place, I should say that I am more than happy to support the bill. It covers a number of areas, and I will focus my remarks on pavement parking and the workplace parking levy. To start with pavement parking, there is no question that we have a problem. Specifically, a car may be fully on a pavement or so much on the pavement that a wheelchair or pram could not get passed. That is obstruction at the moment, the police have the power to enforce that, but in practice it is seldom enforced. In an ideal world, there would be plenty of space for completely clear pavements, lanes for cycling, space for parking and still plenty of room for large vehicles to pass on the road itself. Unfortunately, many roads in Glasgow and beyond just do not have space for all of this. My fear is that forcing cars entirely on to the road surface would cause obstructions for public transport, emergency vehicles and others, and I do not think that any of us want that. As I said, there certainly is a problem at present. However, there are also many considerate drivers who put two wheels on the pavement in order to neither block the road nor the pavement. In fact, that is sometimes encouraged by council road markings to ensure that the road itself does not become blocked. Therefore, I wonder if some compromise is needed. Perhaps it would be better for the rule to be that at least 1.5 metres of pavement must be left clear of vehicles. That would allow adequate space for wheelchairs and prams, and if the pavement was less than 1.5 metres wide, there would be no vehicle wheels allowed on the pavement at all. That would also have the advantage of being cheaper than proposals in the bill. Although the bill would allow exemptions, I suspect that councils will resist introducing exemptions as widely as they should because of the cost of doing so. I am also concerned that whatever the rules are, they are unlikely to be widely enforced. Experience in Glasgow already shows that much parking on double-yellow lines, as well as parking that causes an obstruction, are not enforced despite those already being against the law. The bill proposes powers for local authorities to enforce the law, and the Government says on page 26 of its response that that is a duty. However, I fear that that is just not going to happen in practice. Link to enforcement is the question of whether fines are sufficient for councils to cover their costs—for example, paying wardens, Sandra White. Sandra White, thank you for taking an intervention. That was one of the areas that I was going to raise about enforcement. However, my worry is that, if you make it known that anyone can park on a pavement, even just with two wheels, we have large stretches of roads in my constituent, even though we cover the city centre or I cover the city centre, I would worry that there would be constant cars on those pavements, which means that anyone, even with a pram or a disability, would have a huge amount of area to walk before they could even get off the pavement. That is a worry for me, too. I do not want to encourage people to park on pavements at all. John Mason, I will give you your time back, Mr Mason. That is very kind, thank you very much. I accept that there are differences in different parts of the city, and that the city centre and Hope Street, where I have seen cars parked on double-yellow lines and they are not enforced, is slightly different from most of my constituency, which is further out. However, I think that we will have to get a compromise in here somehow. If I can move on to the workplace parking levy, the second main topic is what I wanted to talk about. There certainly are unusual circumstances around this, as Mr Rumble has already referred to, given that it has become part of the budget agreement and we expect to see an amendment at stage 2. It is not normal to see such a major new issue appear at stage 2 of a bill, and I have to say that I think that it is not ideal. Stage 1 is the main place where a committee gives a thorough examination to the main features of any bill, and I believe that the red committee did give that thorough examination for this bill as introduced. I think that there was an argument that the committee could have postponed the completion of its report in order to take evidence on the levy. However, it was decided to press ahead with stage 1 and deal with the amendment as part of the stage 2 process. In principle, I am comfortable with a levy that targets directors and other highly paid individuals who have a parking space in the city centre, when they could easily use a trainer or a bus for commuting to their 9 to 5 job. However, I, for one, certainly have a lot of questions about the proposed levy. We do know that it is only going to be enabling legislation, and it would then be up to councils whether they wanted it or not. However, we do not know what the level of charge would be, whether it applies to the employer or the employee, what exemptions there might be. It has been suggested that NHS hospitals might be exempt, what about care homes, hospices, GP practices, social work, police, factories that are out of town and work shifts, and should it be extended to out-of-town shopping centres so that shoppers would pay to park and so help to protect our town centres. I look forward to seeing the amendment and to taking evidence at committee, and hopefully those types of questions will then be clarified. Finally, if I can just touch on buses, clearly another issue that has been raised is whether there would be any advantage in commercial bus services being publicly owned. I certainly regret that Strathclyde was forced to privatise its buses while Lothian was allowed to keep theirs. However, the reality is that when we did have Strathclyde buses and before them Glasgow Corporation Transport and Scottish Motor Traction, I think that that is what SMT stood for, and Scottish Bus Group, there were still frequent complaints about bus services. For example, for us in Rutherglen, the complaint was that all the buses ran to Castle Milk and ignored Rutherglen. The reality is that we had evidence that bus usage has been in decline in the west of Scotland since before 1960, long before any privatisation. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to public ownership, I think that we have to be wary that that would automatically lead to increased or improved services. The fall in bus usage is complex and is linked to a desire for cars and certainly improved train services in the Glasgow area. I think that that is something that we should be considering. Therefore, in conclusion, I am more than happy to support the principles of the Transport Bill. It is clear that we will be seeing one major amendment and probably a host of other amendments at stage 2, and we will have to see what happens then. Thank you very much. I call James Kelly to perform by Richard Lyon. Mr Kelly is the penultimate speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. People make contributions on ranging from pavement parking to low-emission zones, and I think that it shows you the wide range that is covered by this bill. The issue that I want to concentrate on is the issue of buses, which I think the bill comes up short. There is no doubt in the area that I represent in the Glasgow region that buses are very much required by commuters. They are required to get to work, they are required for social purposes and also to travel to hospitals. What we have seen in recent years is that there is a concentration of power of buses in terms of a small number of companies that concentrate on the more profitable routes, particularly around the city centre. By the time that we get out to Rutherglen, which Mr Mason has just mentioned, and we go further, we can be lying halfway in Blantyre, the routes aren't as well populated by the buses. In addition to that, another trend that we have seen in recent years is bus companies shutting off the routes in the off-peak period, particularly in the evening. That can be a real problem, particularly for people who are travelling to visit people in hospital. I think that one of the things to examine in terms of why that has happened is that it is looking at the trends. One of the astonishing numbers that I came across in preparing for this debate is that, back in 2007, there were 487 million bus journeys. That has now reduced to a million, basically, to 388 million. There are a million less bus journeys than there were 10 years ago. You can see that there are a number of reasons for that. First of all, fares have increased. Those have gone up by 18 per cent in the last five years, so it is more expensive for people to travel on the bus. There are actually less buses, 10 per cent less in stock and 2 per cent less in staff. Bus companies are contracting in size in terms of infrastructure and numbers, and that feeds on into the routes. That has also contributed to the reduction in the bus service operator grant. The overall picture of local government funding being reduced has not helped in terms of being able to subsidise less profitable routes. What that gives a picture of is a decline in the use of bus services, but an increase in the power of the bus companies have over local communities in terms of what routes they are able to run or cancel. That seems unfair, particularly when 35 per cent of journeys come from concessionary travel, which is obviously a major contribution in terms of free bus travel from the Scottish Government. That therefore leads to the logic of giving more power to local communities and looking to a model that supports municipal bus companies. Ultimately, we need to get back to the position where local communities and local councils have greater control over bus routes in order that they can ensure that their bus routes are in bus companies that service the local community. One of the other interesting areas around the debate that would help might sound a bit technical, but it would help is around ticketing and data. There was a very good briefing provided by the get Glasgow moving group. There has been a lot of discussion over the years about smart ticketing and one ticket to cover different companies and different modes of transport. The reality is that there has been far too slow movement on that. I think that that would help both in terms of ease of travel for customers but also in terms of collection for data. If we are going to organise the bus routes in an efficient manner that serves customers well, we need more information about fares, more information about routes and more information about usage. Smart ticketing and the collection of data would help to service that. The final point that I would make is on the workplace parking levy. I think that there are two issues with it. First of all, it is fundamentally unfair. I have just read a quote from a senior Scottish Government minister saying, talking about free prescriptions and saying how it is unfair to tax ill health. By the same token, why is it fair that people are taxed to drive to their work? In some cases, there are constituents. The member is in his last minute. In fact, he is in his last two seconds. I am sorry, I have only got half a minute. I think that there is a fundamental issue with that. I think that the second issue, which even Mr Mason acknowledged, is quite a big change in Government policy. It is one of the more controversial measures that has been introduced by the SNP over the past 12 years. It is wrong that it comes in at stage 2 of a bill. Even if the Government genuinely wanted to bring it forward, it should have run a consultation on it, and it should have sought people's use rather than ramming it through as part of a budget deal. In summing up, there are still big issues to be resolved at stage 2. I thank the clerks for their work on the committee report. Is that my contribution this afternoon by stating clearly that I welcome and support stage 1 of the transport bill? It is especially important for all to take notice of part 1 of the bill. Part 1 of the bill covers low emission zones, an important matter that I feel serves great purpose to the bill. I am concerned about poor air quality in areas that I want to deliver to the people of Scotland a bill that tends to meet their needs and looks after their health. That is what the bill again anticipates to accomplish. We should make great efforts to improve the health of the people in Scotland by putting forth a bill that strives to reduce air pollution. We will do so by prohibiting vehicles that do not meet emission standards from driving in low emission zones. I welcome low emission zones because I sincerely believe that Scotland deserves to live free from health problems caused by poor air quality, and we could do so by enforcing low emission zones. We will make that implementation by deliberately planning to prevent any unintended repercussions that would undermine our goal, such as suspension of an LEZ. I believe that a 24 LEZ seven days a week should mean exactly that, as suggested by the British Lung Foundation. I would also like to note that I believe that our efforts in care should be extended to local businesses. That is why I believe that part 2 of the bill is also essential. Part 2 of the bill covers bus services in Scotland. This discussion aims to help local councils by giving them options that will help to enhance bus services within their area. Part 2 strives to be more innovative than the way that bus services could be addressed. I have always believed, as a previous councillor, that councils could do more in regard to bus services. Yes, the decline of bus use in Scotland is visible. It is a problem that concerns the committee and it also concerns me. There is a problem that could and should be tackled if Scotland has to reverse its trend. We must address the problem by looking at affordable solutions. I sincerely believe that more of our constituents have the means of approach to our bus services. We would have more people being productive members of our society. We stole them with the opportunity to give back to Scotland. Transport Bill is a piece of legislation that does attempt to help Scotland and its people in its astat. Moreover, the bill wants to improve the daily life of our citizens by coming up with a solution for our pavement parking issue. Indeed, pedestrians must be protected, and the bill will ensure that pavement parking will be addressed. We need to restrict pavement parking to protect our citizens from harm. Paidment parking is dangerous for all pedestrians, including those with site loss. In fact, the guide dogs Scotland survey, which I thank them for providing that information, found that nine out of 10 people with site loss have had problems with cars parked on the pavement. Obstructions on the pavement are not just an inconvenience but a barrier to our people to fully participate in our society. That obstruction prevents people with site loss to move freely and increases feelings of isolation and affects people with a disability and also affects buggy users. Transport Bill will make pavement parking an offence, except, of course, on very limited streets that are exempted by a council. That legislation should be that pavement parking should be a total exception, not a norm. I suggest that that should be minimised in line with the guide dogs Scotland. That bill will respond to the request of our citizens who show that 83 per cent support for new legislation to tackle pavement parking. We make bills to improve the lives of all our citizens, including those with site loss, and that is what the section of the bill should be about. As a member of the committee, I believe that we should listen to the views of the guide dogs Scotland in regards to loading and unloading. I am sure that that will be resolved during the next stage of discussion with guide dogs Scotland. Finally, I have to raise an issue. I also want to declare an interest as a convener of the cross-party group for the showman's guild. I want to voice my support on giving a limited, limited exemption to showman. Considerations should be given regarding exemption to show people to get through a low emission zone at our stage 2 of the Transport Scotland bill. Did this and the showman have been acknowledged as a special case and have an exemption in other areas? Historically, I sound like Mr Stevenson, Historically, show people were first granted concessory rates of taxation in 1927. The vehicle excise in the registration act 1994 modified the concessions but kept this exemption for the showman's guild vehicle. I want to support a preservation of that relief for show people during the bill's stage 2 intent, possibly to ensure that that happens. I support the bill and ensure that it aims for great efficiency and pollution control, strives to improve our bus services and to solve our issues regarding payment parking. I look forward to the next stage of the bill, in which we will look at what place parking will be. Thank you very much. Closing speeches, I call on Colin Smyth to close for Labour up to seven minutes, please, Mr Smyth. Transport impacts on many aspects of our constituent life from our health to the environment to poverty. It accounts for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, with levels currently the same as they were in 1990. It is a key cause of air pollution, which hit illegal levels in eight areas in Scotland last year alone. Cars are by far the biggest polluters in the sector, yet ultra-low emission vehicles still make up less than 1 per cent of road vehicles. Bus usage has plummeted by 20 per cent in the last 10 years under this Government, while bus fares have risen by 17 per cent above inflation. The proportion of journeys done on foot has fallen since last year, and just 1.5 per cent of journeys are carried out by bike. As the poverty alliance has highlighted, it is the most disadvantaged who are hit hardest by those changes. It is as young people being priced out of travelling to education or work by spiralling bus fares and older adults and disabled people isolated by the action of local bus services. This transport bill is an opportunity to take those challenges head-on to move towards a modern, green, accessible transport system. It is an opportunity to set out a vision for transport, to establish the legal framework that will underpin our values and ambitions for public transport as a genuine public service. However, as the bill currently stands, it fails to achieve that. A number of speakers, including Mike Rumbles, John Finnie, Peter Chapman, Richard Lyle and others, talked about low emission zones, albeit with different views. The bill sets out a much needed and largely reasonable framework for LEZs. I believe that amendments are needed if we are to ensure that legislation is effective and future proof. That means having a statutory definition to provide clarity and make clear that the purpose of an LEZ is to ensure that air pollution is lower than it would be if an LEZ had not been introduced. That might seem obvious, but when you consider the generous grace periods in the bill and the natural lifespan of cars, there is a real risk of local authorities introducing LEZs, which ultimately does not have any real effect. That would be weaker if they were not operated on a continuous 24-7 basis, as Richard Lyle highlighted, or could be suspended. Air pollution costs around £2,500 each year in Scotland. It is an urgent public health crisis that the bill does not fully recognise. As Neil Bibby, James Kelly and John Finnie might rumble, Jamie Greene, a number of others also highlighted that the bill fails to recognise the urgent crisis that we face on our bus network by only allowing councils to run bus services that the private sector does not want. Something that not a single council in Scotland has shown any interest in doing. It is no coincidence that Lothian Buses Scotland's only municipal bus company has seen their passenger numbers grow while partnering elsewhere plumarts, or that it has a 95 per cent customer satisfaction rate in some of the lowest fares in Scotland. That is the outcome of a model that prioritises passengers over profits, a model that encourages social responsibility and, crucially, delivers millions of pounds a year back into the public purse to be reinvested in public transport. It is simply unsustainable of the Government to believe that the bill should continue to prevent the rest of Scotland from pursuing such a model. A number of members also highlighted the fact that, as the bill stands, the provisions on ticket arrangements and schemes also do not go far enough. In fact, they do not even deliver the national multi-model smart card that this Government promised back in 2012. The establishment of a new national technological standard and the national smart card, smart ticket and advisory board are welcome, but we need to give them that legally binding remit to deliver a single ticket and scheme across Scotland and across transport modes. There was also general consensus from speakers that pavement parking is an inconvenience for disabled people and action is needed to tackle that. However, there was also a number of views that said that that this should be extended, including a ban on parking on cycle lanes and also next-to-drop kerbs at a point that was made by Sandra White and Donald Cameron. There was a recognition of the need for reasonable and targeted exemptions, however, on the ban on pavement parking. However, those must not act as loop holes undermining the ban, and that is what the exemption allows in 20 minutes for delivery and loading does. I fear that allowing a parking on pavements that gave a 1.5-metre space would also act as a loop hole and still provide a hazard for those with a visual impairment. The section of the bill also gives councils the power to enforce those new regulations. It is a point that has not been covered so far, so I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about that. It means that councils without decriminalised parking enforcement will be required to set up an entire department that could issue a parking ticket for a car park on a pavement on one side of the street but not issue a ticket for a car park on a double-year line at the other side of the street. What an absurd situation for the Government to create it? Surely it is not beyond its ability to bring forward proposals to either simplify the decriminalisation process or to extend enforcement powers to councils for a wider range of traffic offences. I will take an invention here. Does he share the view of Borders Council, which suggested that that simply shifts responsibility enforcement from police to local authorities when they simply do not have the resource or funding to do so? I think that it is a valid point that Jamie Greene makes, that the biggest problem that we have is the fallout from the decision by Police Scotland to scrap traffic wardens. They were the ones that enforced parking problems in our town centres. What you genuinely see now is police officers walking by cars parked on double-year lines and not taking that action because it is not seen as a priority by the police. That is leading, in my view, to parking chaos in far too many of our town centres, which is impacting on businesses in those towns. The sad reality is that, if Police Scotland is not prepared to bring back traffic wardens, the only way to tackle that is to give that power to local councils in order to enforce it. However, the problem with the bill as it currently stands is that, if it has not done that already, if it has not decriminalised car parking, the council would have to enforce the law on pavement parking, but it does not have the power to enforce the law when it comes to parking on a double-year line. That really is an absurd position. It is simply saying that council should go through the huge cost, the huge time to decriminalise parking. In my view, it is not fair, and that is an issue that the Government normally needs to tackle. In the brief time that I have left, I want to place on record Labour's view that the sections on regional transport agencies and roadworks are welcome, particularly the strengthening of the roadworks commissioners powers and the provision of making the safety code mandatory for road authorities. Finally, a number of members did touch on the workplace parking levy, but not one—not a single one—defended the regressive nature of the tax where a company boss paid the same as a company cleaner, or the unfairness that my constituents— The member has got six seconds. Or the fact that my constituents in the south of Scotland would have to pay this tax but would have no power on its imposition or have any of that funding spent on public transport. Labour will support the principles of the bill today, but, as I think all speakers have shown, a lot of work and amendments are needed to make that bill fit for purpose. Thank you very much. I call Liam Kerr to close with the Conservatives up to eight minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to close this debate at stage 1 on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Let me reiterate at the outset that the bill contains many laudable aims, and we will be supporting it at stage 1. However, as several members have made clear throughout the afternoon, presently, this is something of a missed opportunity. There is little doubt that Scotland's transport network and the framework that governs it is in urgent need of renewal and modernisation. What we really need here is a vision, a real drive to the future. However, as I think has been made clear throughout the afternoon, including in many of the submissions, the very helpful submissions that have been sent in for all of us, significant gaps remain. For that reason, we are certainly of the view that the bill could go further and we will be pleased to bring forward amendments at stage 2. I would like to pull out some of the specific areas of the bill and elaborate on the discussion that we have heard throughout the afternoon. Firstly, the low emission zones. There is no doubt that air quality remains an issue for many of our cities, which lowers life expectancy and puts additional pressure on our health service. Indeed, I live within a mile of Market Street in Aberdeen, which is one of the most polluted streets in Scotland. The transport sector is the largest source of nitrogen oxide emissions and the second largest source of particulars in Scotland. We certainly recognise the many potential benefits of tackling air pollution in Scotland's towns and cities, so we are broadly supportive of the effects that they seek to achieve. However, there are issues. Firstly, I am indebted to a member of the SNP, who—a shant name is—wasn't a public conversation, but who pointed out that, anecdotally, the impact of the AWPR on Market Street's pollution may have been considerable. We are waiting for the local authority to report back on that. Furthermore, she pointed out rightly in my view that Market Street's issues will be compounded by the many large-slip ships in the adjacent harbour keeping their power running. We need to be sure with the LEZs that they are used properly and that they will have the desired effect. I also note the Federation of Small Businesses' concerns that the introduction of LEZs could have a direct impact on more than 80,000 businesses in Scotland's four cities. We need to bear in mind that it is a wide definition of businesses. Jamie Greene talked about electric-powered taxis costing £60,000, which is a big hit for a self-employed driver. I also think that his point about rural users of diesel or agricultural vehicles is an important one. John Finnie? I am very grateful for the member for taking the intervention. Will he recognise that, increasingly, particularly with vacated shops, people are living in town and city centres? It would be a boon to them. Never mind, motorists. Liam Kerr? I recognise that, but I do not think that it detracts from my point that LEZs have their place. They can be used properly, but there are some significant concerns that I would like to see ironed out at stage 2. Specifically—I know that John Finnie will share the concern—the cost to the public purse. Peter Chapman raised Dundee, which would be one of the cities to bring in an LEZ. Remember that the point of this is to impose penalties on drivers bringing dirty vehicles into its boundaries. According to a question from Jenny Marra yesterday, at least 100 of the city's buses currently fail to meet basic environmental standards. The committee flagged that the bus industry has raised concerns that introducing LEZs without sufficient lead-in times could force firms to withdraw services or increase fares, which I know that John Finnie would be concerned about. That has to be right, and so I absolutely endorse Jamie Greene's suggestions that we need proper support and or industry-specific exemptions to allow businesses and individuals, particularly vulnerable people, to transition to new LEZs. We need a clear timetable, which might need phased implementation. We need new incentives to encourage take-up of compliant vehicles, and we need support for residents residing within the LEZs and investment to enhance public transport and active travel routes. Then there is pavement parking. Again, I think that this is a real issue that I am pleased that the bill addresses. Richard Ewell brought up the guide dogs for the blind and haven't experienced a blindfold walk with a guide dog in forfer, and consulted with constituents in Aberdeen, who are mobile only through wheelchairs. There is a definite need in my view to address that. Cars parked on pavements can force people to walk into the road, which is especially dangerous for blind and partially sighted people, and those with reduced mobility, older people and families with push chairs. Again, I share Jamie Greene's concerns that, although inconsiderate parking must be tackled, a blanket ban was no room for exemptions by local authorities, who remember that they are the ones who know their community's best might be too much of a catch-all approach. There has to be room for a compromise to find a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. I agree with the committee that a limited amount of pavement parking could be permitted in specific areas, provided that a minimum amount of pavement space remains. Just in passing, I hear Edward Mountain talk about cycling Scotland's brief and whether it would be appropriate to extend the provisions in the bill to cover cycleways. I hear Sandra White and Donald Cameron, who talked powerfully in my view about new protections for dropped carb crossing points. Personally, I think that there is a great deal of merit in those proposals, and I endorse the calls for the Scottish Government to consider whether such extensions would be appropriate. A brief word on the workplace parking levy. I cannot but oppose it. I cannot see how it can be right to charge workers £500 just to park at their place of work. Of course I will. I am extremely grateful for the member taking intervention at that point. I do not know where he gets that figure from, but will the member acknowledge that his Government reviewed the policies that were available to local authorities in England and Wales and consider that that was appropriate to be kept? Why does he want fund-raising powers for local authorities in England, but not in Scotland? Only one council has done it. The significant point, John Finnie, is that we are talking about Scotland and we are talking about what is right for Scotland. The sheer number of objections to that is not least—I know that he will be concerned about that—not least from the Scottish Police Federation, who suggests that it could compromise not only public safety, but the safety of our brave police officers. I know that that will concern John Finnie, and we must listen to those voices. Perhaps uniquely, I completely associate myself with Colin Smyth's comments in that regard. I think that he made absolutely spot-on points, as did James Kelly, to be fair, about commuters outside cities paying to no local benefit under a fundamentally inequitable policy. I thought that that was well made. Just in passing, Richard Ewell seems to have missed a bit out in his speech. I wonder if he would like to intervene on me right now and restate his view that he will never vote for this policy. Would you care to do so, Mr Ewell? I can ask members not to make exchanges across the chamber, but through the chair, and you are concluding in 30 seconds. He seems reluctant to do it, so I will not push the point. I think that what is clear from this debate and the committee's report, and indeed the many submissions that various groups have sent in advance in this debate, the bill is laudable. There are many good principles here, including a focus on the environment and supporting bus services, which I have not had time to summarise, but I thought that Mike Rumbles and Peter Chapman looked at in detail and very persuasively. Whether it goes far enough or is ambitious enough, I have my doubts, but I confirm that we will support the principles at stage 1. I look forward to cross-party collaborative working going forward to drive improvements into Scotland's transport network. Thank you very much, and I call on Michael Matheson to wind up the debate for the Government, Cabinet Secretary, until decision time please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Welcome to contributions from right across the chamber and touching upon a whole range of different issues within this. Bill Edward Mountain in his opening comments made reference to the time allocation for those bills, given the complexity of it and the range of issues that he does cover. I do have some sympathy with that, given the range of topics that are covered, even in my opening remarks, I was having to counter through them in order to try and touch upon as many of them as possible. However, I will seek to try and pick up on some of the issues that have been raised. I take exception to the suggestion from Mr Green, though in some way that this is not an ambitious bill. I think that he is confused between the need for legislation and a strategy in taking forward provisions that are created within legislation. That is why I said at the outset in my speeches that the bill is only one element of the wider range of measures that we need to take forward on tackling a whole range of different transport issues. The review of the national transport strategy will be absolutely critical to making sure that we achieve the benefits that can come from the bill, but to achieve that much more ambitious agenda of improving Scotland's transport infrastructure and transport services. I am sure that he will wait with bated breath to read the draft of the national transport strategy when it is published and he will share it with Mr Kerr beside him, who seems to have confused legislation and strategy as well. However, I want to pick up on one of the key issues that was raised in the course of the debate, which was the provision of low-emission zones. It is clear that there is a need for us to make sure that we are taking appropriate action to address the issues of pollution air quality within our town centres and particularly within our big city town centres. Low-emission zones are a very clear element that can assist us in seeking to achieve that. Edward Mountain, Jamie Greene, Mike Rumbles, John Finnie and Colin Smyth raised the issue of low-emission zones in their own contributions. One of the issues that was raised in particular was the standardised approach that there will be to low-emission zones. If members want to reflect on my evidence to the Wreck Committee, which was correctly reflected by Mr Mountain and my response to the stage 1 report, our intention is to have consistency on how low-emission zones are applied so that the truck that is compliant or the bus that is compliant, the car that is compliant and Glasgow low-emission zone will also be compliant with the low-emission zone in Dundee, in Aberdeen or in Edinburgh. There is a consistent approach to the standards that will be applied. The very reason that we are setting out these provisions within regulations is to allow us to have the flexibility to adapt those as things progress. As we get more advanced on the Euro 6 engines or the Euro class 4 engines, we are in a position where we can adapt that. We are technology adapts that we are able to adapt the regulations. Rather than reverting back to primary legislation, we can do it much more quickly and flexibly through regulations as we learn how they are bedding in and also as technology progresses. I will give way to Mr Stevenson. Looking at the Clean Air Air for Scotland, the road to a healthier future, which the Government published, the second pollutant on the list provided there is sulphur dioxide. The issue of vessels continuing to run their engines in harbours adjacent to areas is a real one because that is the big source of sulphur dioxide. Will the cabinet secretary work with the UK Government to try and reduce the sulphur in marine fuels, which might help? The member makes a good point because there are new and emerging technologies within the marine industry in itself that could help to address that. That is something that we will continue to pursue with the UK Government to try and seek to address that very issue. In the issue of air quality, something that was raised by Peter Chapman and his contribution by John Finnie, the low-emission zones do not sit on their own in seeking to improve air quality within our city centres. A key part of what we are seeking to do with the low-emission zones is to help to take forward a range of other measures that can help to prioritise public transport options. We will only have to look at the approach that has been taken by Glasgow City Council, which introduced the first of our low-emission zone on 31 December of last year, with the Glasgow Connectivity Commission, which is looking at a whole range of different issues and how it can improve transport connectivity in the Glasgow and in the greater Glasgow area, a key part of which is to look at improving bus provision in that particular area. The approach that is being taken by a city like Glasgow is exactly the approach that low-emission zones are about helping to support and achieve, that wider, more holistic approach of looking at active travel options, other public transport options, looking at bus prioritisation, all of the measures that we know can assist us in helping to improve air quality in our town centres and have improved the attractiveness of public transport options and also active transport options in taking forward those measures. That is why, for example, in places like Glasgow, where the average speed of a bus is going through the city centre, I am told that it is in the region of three miles per hour. By looking at providing greater public transport prioritisation within the town centre, if it is doubled that to six miles an hour, it makes journey times quicker, it makes public transport and bus more attractive and the cost base for the industry in running those buses is lower as well. That is one of the measures that they are considering in looking at how they can take that forward. Law-emission zones are going to be an important element but they are one of a range of issues. A number of members have raised issues in relation to bus industry and particularly the issue of declining patronage. One of the errors that can be made in tackling some of the challenges that we have around the bus industry is to think that there is some magic wand to reverse over four decades of decline in bus patronage. We all know that the reasons for the decline in bus patronage are multifactorial. There are a whole range of different issues that impact on bus patronage. The idea that there is some simple one-off solution off the shelf that will address all of those issues is simply wrong because of the complexity of the issue. That is why it is important in the provisions that we have made available in the bill is that we provide a range of different options that are available to local authorities in order to look at developing an approach that best suits their local circumstances. For some, that might be franchising, for some it might be a bus service improvement partnership, for some it might be running its own services. I hear the views. As I said when I was at committee, those who believe that there should be the provision where local authorities should be able to run their own services as and when they like on a municipal basis like we have here in Lothian as well. I am not ideologically opposed to that. However, one note of caution is the suggestion that that is the answer to all of our bus issues in Scotland is simply not true. The reason I would say that is because you only have to look at some of the municipal bus services in England, in some cities, where they do not work well at all and they are looking to disinvest from them because of the challenges that they have. It is not simply about one model, it is about how you make the use of that model, which is important and why we will give consideration to it. I think that Mr Smith was first in seeking to try to make an intervention. I will give way to him. Colin Smyth. I think that what was important during the debate was not that a single member said that there was one panacea, if you like, for the declining bus patternage, but why does the cabinet secretary think that banning councils from having the same model in Lothian is a way to improve bus services? Why does he stick to that point? As I have said and I will repeat for the third time for the member, I am open to giving consideration to that particular option. However, when members overplay a particular option, it suggests to me that they think that there is a simple wand that they can wave that will resolve problems, which is simply just not true and does not reflect the complexity of the issue, and no doubt the member will want to reflect on that. I hear the competing views that have been across the chamber about the 20-minute exemption to allow people to do unloading. It is important to recognise that. Those in the road haulage industry within those delivery industries and business would say that there needs to be some level of exemption to allow deliveries to take place. Those who think that there should be no exemption whatsoever or that it should be on the basis of the level pathway that could be made available to the concerns that have been raised by Sandra White. I think that everyone in the chamber would want to recognise, along with Ross Finney and Joe Fitzpatrick, that over many years they have been pursuing the whole issue of pavement parking and the need to tackle that issue. I will, of course, reflect on the views and issues that have been raised by the committee in this matter and by members in the chamber. We are seeking to achieve a balance that addresses that issue in an appropriate fashion. However, if there are ways in which we can address some of the concerns that have been raised, we will certainly give them due consideration in the stage 2 process. The next item is consideration of motion 16393 on a financial resolution for the Transport Scotland bill. I will call on Derek Mackay to move the motion. There are just two questions. The first question is that motion 16747, in the name of Michael Matheson, on stage 1 of the Transport Scotland bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 16393, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the Transport Scotland bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. I will remind members that I will be in touch at some point over the next week but have a productive recess. I close this meeting.