 Merdw i'n fawr i gael i'r cyfleion ar gyfer y twfyniwr 23 yn 2018 o gyfleion cyfrifysgwrd a Gweithreifolde Ac wedi gwahod firmrail. Fel ar y cydnod, mae'n dweud i amserio fel araf ac yn ei bobl sciences. Runtod sefydliad yn rwc wedi'i dal, ac mae'n fawr i'n gweithio'r ymddanghau yr egen ddallan yn ei ddysgu cyfrifysgwrd. Dysgu y ceiladau sy'n meddwl gyffredinol ar y bil Cyfrifysgwrd. y Comisi will take evidence from local authorities, regional transport partnerships and their representatives. I'd like to welcome Gordon MacKy, chair of the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland. Sorry, that's quite unmouthful. Charlie Hoskins, member of the Society of the Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, almost got it right the second time. Jim Greave, head of programmes for Cestran, Bill Kylo, head of policy and planning, Strathclyde partnership for transport, Paul Lawrence, the executive director of Plays City of Edinburgh and David Summers, the principal passenger transport officer for the Highland Council. Welcome. We have a series of questions for those of you that haven't given evidence before at the committee. If I just say, if you want to answer a question, if you try and catch my eye, I will bring you in. I'll try and do it in a balanced way. Please don't be offended if I can't bring you all in on every single question. We may well run out of time if I did. And you don't need to touch your microphone buttons in front of you. That will all be worked out and done for you. The first question this morning comes from Colin. I want to kick off on the issue of buses within the draft bill that is before us. Currently, we would restrict new local authority bus companies to run in only those non-profit making services that, frankly, commercial companies wouldn't touch. Do you think that that restriction is fair or that local authority bus companies should be allowed to run all-bus services? I would like to come in there. Charlie, do you start off with that, if you like? Yes, good morning. As well as representing Scots, I have also got a senior director role on SPT, so perhaps I can also help to answer that question with my colleague Bruce and Gordon. I think that it is our view that it is probably restrictive. I think that if you look at the moment how we currently fund subsidised services, certainly within the west of Scotland, there is off the order of £11 million per annum. That £11 million per annum is effectively tendered to bus operators. Those are the same bus operators that are running the commercial services. That is the difficulty in going back to the market in those areas. The challenge in restricting it to socially necessary services is by nature that they do not have major patronage in terms of the numbers that use those services. Ultimately, if those services become quite successful, you are then subject to a private operator coming in and saying, well, that now looks pretty good. Let's run a service. In order to even set up that, you have to invest in depots, vehicles, people and all the processes, etc. I think that the view is that, certainly in the Scots' view as well, is that there are some big challenges there. Then it might be something that the committee wishes to look at in terms of broadening the remit off that particular area in the bill in terms of municipally owned. David, sorry, I am just looking round. Paul, do you want to come in as well? David, go first and then I will come back to you. Okay. To some extent, I will be speaking personally here. The Highland Council has supported the power to have bus companies, council-owned bus companies. We are positive about that. Our members have not specifically considered, as yet, the line in the bill that was subject to your question. On that one, I can only speak personally. I feel that for a directly operated council service, that restriction is probably appropriate, but if it was an arms length company or a council-owned company, then that should have the same commercial freedom as any other company. I feel that for any more than modest scale, the council-owned company is the way that I would support going. Interestingly, the bill does not make any mention of that. It talks about council operated bus services, but it does not mention companies. That is an area that could be clarified as the bill progresses. I am going to bring in Bruce and then I am going to ask Stuart. I think that it has got a supplementary before I bring in Paul. Bruce, will you mind going on that one now? Just to amplify what Charlie was saying, in discussions with Transport Scotland, we have been reassured that there will be opportunities through regulation and secondary legislation to have a look at some of those things. I think that the aspiration generally across Scotland when people have looked at an organisation like Lothian Buses, I think that they have seen that and they have inspired to that. I think that it is really to do with the definition of what you call socially necessary. Obviously, that will change across Scotland the way that Charlie outlined there, the way that we approach it, as we support, we subsidise bus services, we have spread that £11 million a year that we have for supporting bus services ever thinner, utilising community transport, demand responsive transport through our MyBus services as well, but people's definition of socially necessary in the Highland area and in some of the more deprived areas of Glasgow will be different. I think that that is an opportunity within the bill to perhaps widen the consideration of how a municipal company could operate. Now that Stuart is wanting in, if you want to follow up on that, Colin. I wonder two points really at how we have ended up in a position where the Government have brought forward such a restricted proposal in a bill when, frankly, the consensus seems to be that it is a restriction. In Scottish Government officials did indicate when they gave evidence, Transport Scotland officials, when they gave evidence recently that they were in discussions now effectively looking potentially to lift that restriction going forward. Can I ask what discussions you have had with Transport Scotland officials on that particular issue? Has anybody actually been involved in those discussions and making the point about lifting that restriction? Paul, I do not want to cut you off, but I think that this is more bruised at this stage, so Bruce, would you like to answer that? Yes, sure. One thing that we would say really from the outset, I think, in this bill is that Transport Scotland officials have been very good in terms of their level of engagement with the regional transport partnerships, SPT, and I think that the councils, that has most certainly been something that is positive in looking back over the last six or seven years, it is something that we have been promoting, a change to the framework for bus in Scotland through our bus policy and through various other initiatives that we have had. It has been partly our pushing that has led to this situation. I would not want to speak, obviously, on behalf of Transport Scotland or the Scottish Government, why they have put that restriction into socially necessary. I am aware, however, that there is, obviously, the competitive angle to this. Bus operators have the right, you know, and make no judgment calling whether that is right or wrong. They run commercial services, ensure a socially necessary service, go over the top of that, and then they would have a big issue, so perhaps that can have background to where the Scottish Government is coming from on this. However, we have been in dialogue with TES and there has been dialogue about how that could be widened out, perhaps, as I said earlier, looking at that definition of what social need and socially necessary is, and each area would have a particular view on that. I will come back to that very briefly. That still is a restricted model for what you are suggesting. I mean, why can't we have the Lothian buses model, where, frankly, a local authority-owned bus company cannot run in competition to the private sector? There is no competition in the bus sector at the moment. I think that the thing with Lothian buses is a fantastic bus company that they are. The history of that organisation and the history of how the bus market in each area of Scotland has developed is very different. In Edinburgh and the Lothians, you might get two or three operators in the west of Scotland, where we are. We have got around about 60 operators. That is the way the market has developed based on decisions that were made previously. I think that the aspiration, as I say, from some of the councils and RTPs and others, has been to look at the Lothian model and how that could be applied in the area, the elephant in the room, of course, being funding and how you start off something like that with depots, pensions and vehicles. However, as I say, the legislation, as it is proposed at the moment, would not allow the creation of a Lothian-type model, but I know that TSR is considering how that perhaps could be widened out to appease those who are anxious to do the Lothian-style model. Paul, I am happy to bring you in. I want to go to Mike Rumbles with a full on. Just very briefly, convener, I suppose that it is a good link from what Bruce was saying. Obviously, from my Edinburgh point of view, we do benefit from the Lothian model in the way that members have discussed. I suppose that it was to emphasise that point. Exactly right, different history, different circumstances, different market, but it does give us as a local authority an opportunity to have a strategic relationship with a provider looking not only at social requirements but also at the economic growth requirements of the city. Think about economic and social dimensions in the wider spatial planning as a whole. It allows that holistic relationship, which I am not convinced that the current provisions would allow elsewhere. We were told last week by the civil service building that this is going to give power to the 32 councils to run their own bus companies, but it would only be on loss-making routes. We are interested in having effective legislation. My question to you is this. How many of those 32 councils are likely to want to invest in all the human resources and the depots and the buses to create a loss-and-run, a loss-making service? I would like to know how many of those 32 councils would do something like that. Who wants to answer for the 32 councils across Scotland and Gordon? Clearly, councils currently operate in a very difficult financial environment. I think that the number of councils that would actually take the offer that we currently have forward would be somewhere between nil and very low. David, just for you, I'm going to bring Stuart in and then maybe we can tie it up. One of the things that's put to me from time to time by constituents and others is that when a route becomes non-economic and a bus company wants to shut it down, the council steps in because it is socially necessary. The same company in what may be a locally quasi-monopolistic situation comes back in and now gets paid to run the bus service. How can we deal with that? Although in individual circumstances you might be able to justify it, it doesn't sound offy good. I think that there's plenty of opportunity for a bit of gaming there. Is that statement by me overplaying the situation? Is it something that you recognise? Charlie, you wanted to come in on that. Pretty much on a day-to-day basis. I think that there's a step before organisations like SPT and local authorities actually step in. There's a lot of hidden work that goes on behind the scenes to convince the operator that it's not the right thing to do, that there's a bigger picture that they should consider than purely one-of-profit. To be fair to operators, they do have that consideration quite often and they do really consider it to be a last resort that they have to pull that service out. Our socially necessary guideline criteria that we use then we work through that to say what type of service needs to be put in. One of the difficulties—and I'm hoping that the committee might come on to this—is the data that's required to do that. We do not get the data from the operators that tells us how many passengers, their origin, destination, etc. One of the big things that the bill has to address is data and the requirements for whatever framework, whether it be a partnership or a franchise. Briefly, are you allowed to see the data for the concession card scheme? Because that would be one part of the answer. I would have to defer and come back to the committee on that. I'm not 100% setting on that point. Just to follow on and answer your point about what the dynamic then looks like, the dynamic for us is quite interesting because we then go into the procurement legislation. We've introduced a more dynamic purchasing method to make it a little bit more efficient, but ultimately you're still going back to a market and quite often in those areas you've maybe got one or maybe a couple of other operators. That operator will take a view on what he believes is the right price for that because he's in a competitive tender situation. What also happens quite often in our committee members see this when we bring it for approval is that we will often go back out again. It's simply unaffordable the returns that we get and there's a lot of dialogue with operators about the affordability of that. One of the opportunities that might well be, and the committee might come to, is in the partnership model, not just in a franchise model, that there's some ability to share that data a bit more so that what your pain is a cost is effectively a top-up cost rather than that you're buying a whole chunk of a service over here. That's a dynamic, obviously, that's quite interesting, but in terms of, hopefully, that gives a member a bit more insight. I'm briefly going to bring in the deputy convener, Gail Ross, and then I'm going to go to Rich Llyr. My question is, thank you convener, and good morning. My question, David, is specifically for you, you won't be surprised to hear. Are there any school routes in Highland that are specifically just for schools that would be able to be opened up to the public when we're talking about social routes? If there are, what would need to be done to allow this to happen? Is that covered in the bill or can that be done now? That's you on the spot, on a non-constituacy question from the deputy convener. That is fine. That can be done at the moment. In fact, we've increased over the past two or three years the number of school routes that are open to the public, but working against that has been the public service vehicle accessibility requirements, where it may need a coach, a 50-seater coach, to take the number of school pupils, and that now doesn't conform if it hasn't got a wheelchair lift on it, it doesn't conform the accessibility requirements, and therefore, those have had to be removed from the public network because the alternative would be two buses at higher cost. I think that it's fair to say that's only happened where the public usage has been minimal in any case, but the current legislation allows councils to run school buses. We do it with a few mini buses, we don't have any large buses, but we do have mini buses, and it also allows us to make off-peak use of those vehicles for providing a public service. That's pretty restricted because it does depend on having its core use as a school transport, and we would certainly welcome the provision in the bill that broadens that out. I think that there are issues about the operator licence, and certainly I would say that any operation like that should be under a no licence, which I think is the intention of the bill, but it isn't specifically stated, and perhaps referring back to Mr Rumble's question about loss making, the power proposed is to run services that the private sector haven't registered. That might be loss making for them, but not necessarily for us. I'm thinking about a case in Murray, where that happened recently, where the private sector operator was doing a route, and the council was able, using off-peak time on a school bus, to replace that service at what I understand is more or less break-even. The fact that the consideration is not about loss making or not, is any commercial provider providing it or not? There are other people who want to come in, but Richard Rennie wants to drill down into a few questions. Richard, if you go next on that, I might bring other people in afterwards. Thank you, convener. I know that Bruce Cullow touched on several of the questions that I was going to ask, so I'll wrap my questions up to a wee bit simpler. Basically, in Scotland, let me set the scene. We're spending millions of pounds in bus transport. In my area, there are numerous bus operators, set up by people who really don't provide a service in some areas, and are letting, basically, I would suggest, my constituents down. The Scottish Government officials, who I believe could be bolder, gave evidence to the committee last week indicating that there may be state aid, competition rules, preventing local authority bus companies from providing a commercial service. Should we not be trying to reintroduce—come back, the Glasgow corporation, all is forgiven—should we not be trying to reintroduce a public bus service that serves the public in Scotland? Does that transport bill fail on that regard? I think that Bruce, that's you. Thanks for your question. I think that it's an interesting point that the west of Scotland bus market just put it into perspective. 60 million passengers down over the last 10 years, facing a lot of difficulties. I mentioned there around about 50 to 60 operators that are in our area at the moment. Five or six years ago, that was 120. Some of those have been bought over, but some of those have gone out of business. I think that we are proud of what we do at SPT in providing that public service and subsidising those services, which are deemed socially necessary. I suppose that a wider question would be, should you be relying on a piece of legislation to try and turn a bus market, which is in decline, down? Possibly not. Will the new bill make the world a better place as far as bus in the west of Scotland goes? Hopefully? Probably. I think that it's better. The proposals for bus service improvement partnerships are better than what's in there from the statutory quality partnerships previously. I think that the proposal in relation to franchising a whole range of questions around that is better than quality contracts. One thing is for sure that whatever state the legislation comes out in, we will explore every opportunity to try and maximise the benefits of the new legislation for the people of the west of Scotland. It comes down to, as I said, the elephant in the room is really the funding aspect of it. We spoke earlier on about our £11 million budget for supporting socially necessary services. That generally, as a rule, works out around about £5 per head per person for a year for our area. You go down south, you're looking at perhaps £25 a head for some of the bigger regions, £15 a head for some of the others. You go to London and it's around about £100 a head. Those are very rough figures and you do get what you pay for. Whatever the new legislation comes forward with, if there's money there to back it up, that will make life a bit easier. If we're going into negotiations with the operators for a bus service improvement partnership, whatever form it may take, they always sit up and take notice of you bringing a bit of money to the table. Correct me if I'm wrong. I can go and set up a bus service tomorrow if I've got all the necessary licenses. I'm in muddle. We have a crazy situation that two buses follow each other going the same route because they're different companies. Crazy. We're paying that money out for nothing. So why don't we sit down and decide here's what we need, here's what we want and here's what's going to serve my and your passengers and my constituents? We're not doing that and this bill won't do in to resolve that. Or will it? Tell me. Well, Charlie, do you want to have a go at that? Yeah, because it's actually fallen up on the point that Bruce is making and you're absolutely right for somebody who also lives locally in the area and very much see that as a passenger as well. I think there's a couple of areas in the bill that there is that opportunity to do that. At the moment we try and do that with operators through the registration process. So their registrations come in and when they actually come to us we try and suggest to them that actually that's not a good registration because it's too aggressive against another operator, it should be spread. So, you know, if somebody's coming in on the clock, there shouldn't be somebody five minutes later, it should be 15 to try and give a 15 minute service as an example. I think something like the bus services improvement partnerships is a good idea in that regard because that's actually the whole point to sit down and plan that network. Now, one of the things that we need to have to do that is the data. Apologise if that's the second time I've said it but it's really, really important and we've said in our submission, certainly in the SPT submission and Scots has made the point as well, that we actually need to get to the heart of that data. That data gives you the network to plan and then from that you wouldn't necessarily, you would hope not to be setting up a partnership that you would then experience that type of situation. Thank you, Charlie. Maureen, you want to follow in. Maureen Cymru. Good morning, gentlemen. Many of you will have community buses running in your area. Indeed, this committee in a previous incarnation did an inquiry into community transport. What effect, if any, would the proposals in this bill have on community transport groups? Bruce, followed by Charlie. Just to say community transport, we view it as a key part of the transport mix. Nowadays, it's an essential part of our provision for the transport network in the west of Scotland, some of the issues that we've talked about earlier on for those socially necessary services. If our funding can only go so far, we are very supportive and reliant on community transport to assist us in filling that gap. We've put our money where our mouth is in that regard in supporting some fantastic community transport organisations around the west of Scotland, an essential part of it. I would see that, through things like the bus service improvement partnership, they would be a key part of that mix. I think it would be folly for us to ignore that. We want to build on the success that we had on the west of Scotland community transport network, which was trying to set a standard for community transport in the west of Scotland, and we're delighted to have operators sign up to that, enabling them to be able to access funding for us. We will work with the community transport organisations through the provisions of this act, if it comes to that, and make the best of the situation that we have. That then is seen as an alternative to local authorities. Expanding that would be an alternative to local authorities setting up their own bus companies. David, I don't know if you want to come in because you've got some in the islands. Yes, I'm happy to come in with that. I think that the community transport position is a little uncertain, while Westminster is still reviewing the position of section 19 and section 22 permits, although the indications that we're getting from them are backpedalling a bit from their original very restrictive interpretation. Community transport is likewise, as Bruce has said, very important. In area 2, there are 25 groups that we currently support. They are mostly pretty small-scale, and I don't see much impact from this bill on them because they are not operating under PSVO licences. If any groups wanted to expand the level where taking on an O licence was appropriate, the provisions that are here for partnerships and so on would apply just as they do with the commercial sector. That could be positive. Overall, I think that this bill is addressing a different market from what community transport, at least in our area, provides complementary—not competing—could community transport operators do it as a substitute for council operation. Under the permit system, it is restricted to what the permit provides for, but there is the potential to explore there. I don't think that I can go further than that at the moment. Maureen Watt, I would like to bring in Jim, because he hasn't had a chance yet, and then I would like to go back to Richard, if that's all right. Thank you, convener. Just to give a voice to the south east of Scotland, as well as the west and the north, community transport is something that we are certainly very interested in from the regional transport partnership perspective, particularly for rural areas such as Scottish Borders, where there are some real issues with the numbers of bus services that are available to people there. I'm not sure to what extent this bill will assist in that sort of development, but it's certainly something that we are very keen to do, and again to refer to the elephant in the room that Bruce has raised a number of times. If there was more funding available than that, it's something that we would certainly like to make some progress with. Richard, do you have a— I have a last question, and thank you, Mr Greed, for—I certainly agree with you. Scottish Government officials indicated last week that the proposed local service franchise regime would remove the N2 bar, which has prevented any authority from pursuing a bus quality contract. Is this your view? Do you share that view? If so, how many local service franchises could we possibly expect to see operating within the next few years? If any. As I cut you off. Thank you. That's an interesting question. This is something new. I think that we are of the view that it certainly removes that previous bar, which in effect an equality contract was about proving a negative. It was about proving that there was market failure. However, what's in place of that are some really stiff challenges in terms of setting up a franchise, the analysis that's required—I'm sorry for the third time you say—about data, but the data that you require to do that analysis, but to give you some comparator, Transport for Greater Manchester are investing £11 million on the analysis of a franchise, not the delivery of it, the analysis of a franchise. That's the same budget that we have for the delivery of services in the Strathclyde area, which is roughly the same conurbation size as Greater Manchester. I think that there's a lot of challenges in that. I think that we in Scotland share the same view in terms of some of the checks that are in there with an independent panel. All of that work to get to a point that could quite easily just not take place despite the transport authority believing that it's the right thing to do. I think that there's some really stiff challenges in that, and we'd be interested in seeing what that kind of guidance looks like with the mechanics of how you do that. I might have removed a bar. I think that there's a few other big chunky obstacles for us to overcome to get to that point. Whether it means that you've got certain areas—and there was a certain area that we had, and it was in Lanarkshire a number of years ago that we did considerable analysis on a quality contract, but we couldn't quite get over that bar. Whether that is an area that we might explore as a franchise in the future, it's probably that kind of size that we're looking at, where we're seeing there's some maybe unmet needs, but, again, it's difficult to get the data to underpin that. John Finnie, would you like to go up with the questions? Thank you, convener, and good morning, panel. I have a number of questions regarding smart and integrated ticketing, and I think that we'd all welcome the extension to include rail and ferry services. Excuse me, there's several proposals in there, and a lot of them relate to powers given to ministers about technical standards, definitions, the establishment of an advisory board. Now, we've had a couple of representations from local authorities. I read you put Easton-Bartonshire Council raised concerns that the proposals, in a quote here, may generate a large number of individual smart cars that cannot be used across transport across a number of travel platforms. Stirling tells us that the system would be much more useful and understandable for customers if it were compulsory for operators to join such schemes. Are you able to comment on what you see as the benefits of any of the proposals in the bull about smart ticketing, please? Charlie, unless you want to come in, I'm sure that other people will have views on it, but let's start with you, Charlie, and then we'll perhaps bring other people in. Yes, sure, so apologies for slight dominating it, but quite a lot of deep experience in this particular area of integrated ticketing and smart ticketing. I think there's two things, first of all. I think that if there's a technical standard and members might be aware that there's a technical standard, which is ITSO, which is the technical standard, so the technical platform to interoperate between operators is there, and that's a UK-wide technical standard. Within the subway, we've had that for five years when we interoperate with ScotRail and interoperate with a number of bus operators, but the difficulty is striking the commercial and operational agreements with those operators for a couple of different reasons. One, as soon as you start integrating products, there's a fear that you're diluting your revenue as an operator, because if you're sharing your journey and you're sharing the revenue, then potentially, as an operator in your own little space, you're not getting the full fear from that. That's an operator perspective that's well understood. We operate zone card in this PTA area, a paper-based system, so I think that the technical platform is where you start from. I think that the other interesting thing, and we are trialling this at the moment, is that everybody talks about smart cards. Well, actually, the vast majority of what's grown up as a generation are actually on devices, smartphones and watches, et cetera. In fact, what you want is a frictionless system where you're actually buying your ticket. It's downloaded to your phone and you're using that to either tap to go through the gate for a QR code, et cetera. That whole space of technology, I think it would be wrong to start legislating at this moment in time and let that grow. I think that how it's written in the bill is actually pretty good, because I think that it needs an advisory group to ministers where all the operators are coming together to actually bring that forward and allow the technologies to develop into those spaces. The top-down with so many operators of different commercial views would be pretty near impossible without full regulation. Can I clarify on this at a stage where we are going about with two cards at the moment because we're changing over as parliamentarians here? Is it sufficiently future-proofed with this advisory board? Technology changes very rapidly and we don't want a situation where something's imposed and only to find the following week there's another version? Inevitably, there will be another version the following week, of course. Yeah, it's a good point. Again, Transport Scotland officials have been, I've got to say, really open and pretty good on this because we've been talking about our experience as a number operator has had. I think that that's why you would have an advisory board. Don't impose something yet. There's quite a lot going on in that whole space of devices, so as long as you've got your technical standard, so you've got the security of the product on the card or the device, that's your core, and let the commercial and the operators come forward with what's the best medium, so is it a card, is it a phone, is it a watch, etc. All of that's happening at the moment. I have to say that Scotland's leading the way in a lot of this, so both in terms of the ScotRail network and what we're doing in the subway network, we're doing that right now. We've got customers tapping on the gates with their phone and actually going through with their phone, which is incredible. John, I'd like to bring in David, and I'm sure that Stuart is going to flash his full cards in a minute, but... David, do you want me to take the answer of the supplementary I have too at some time, then please? In that was, was there any concerns about the proposal to allow Scottish ministers to direct local authorities to establish smart ticketing? David, if you could comment on that, please. That was actually the exact point that I wanted to make. I agree with everything that Charlie has said. I just had two supplementary points. One was that Transport Scotland have been very helpful and very positive in helping to broaden the availability of smart enabled ticket machines. The ones for our small operators in our area have been upgraded, they can do that, so that all helps. The other thing was the provision in the bill that ministers can instruct local authorities to introduce a smart ticketing scheme, but there's no power for local authorities to instruct operators to participate. The ministerial instruction gets stuck halfway, if you like, and I think that that's something that needs to be addressed. Charlie rightly outlined the commercial concerns, whether operators are going to lose revenue through it, but if that instruction is going to be effective, it needs to be able to follow through. Jamie, do you want to come in? John, I'll come back to you if there's anything further. Jamie, do you want to? Thank you, convener, and good morning panel. I think that one of the concerns, really, though, is that what we may end up with is a situation where there are a number of authorities that operate a system, a payment system that operates across multiple modes of transport, so you may have differentiation travelling from one local authority or region to another. There will also be different technologies in use by different operators who are trying to increase patronage in their own mode of transport, and that's all fine. There are also national schemes layered on top of that as well. Isn't this all creating a very fragmented, quite confusing payment landscape? Contactless clearly is a standard that can operate across all modes, but all that is doing is simply enabling payment through the use of technology. It's not necessarily a payment standardised platform itself in terms of ticketing. Government here has an opportunity and has done in other countries such as the Netherlands where they introduced the chip cart and other countries have done similar schemes. Government has an opportunity here to create a nationwide national technology standards but also to ensure that all operators are part of those schemes. Do you think that the bill goes far enough to take away that confused landscape and create a national scheme that works right across Scotland and across multiple travel modes? I'm scanning everywhere. Charlie is always very keen to come in, so I'm very happy to bring him in. If anyone else would like to chip in, Bruce, I'll bring you in afterwards, Charlie. Only because it's a very pertinent question that's happening out there at this moment in time, and I guess what's quite clear in other countries is that quite often in those countries they've got fully regulated transport systems as a whole, because when you start imposing things like a single payment mechanism, etc., you're getting into certain fare levels and all of those competition issues, which is really quite tricky to unpick all of that. I suppose rather than it being fragmented, the question is are we making it easier for the customers? I think that's where we try and focus. If we're making it easier for the customers for the types of journeys they make, I don't think you'll ever cover every single journey that somebody makes in Scotland, so if you're making it for their normal trips, then you're making that easier. I think that a time will come where there'll be another face of technology, and members will have heard of the mobility as a service as a concept, where I think that whole space of how you aggregate a transport planning system with a payment system and perhaps a big technology provider might supply that and operators feed into that. It's definitely a really interesting concept, and I know that the Scottish Government have put some funding into that for the year ahead, which is really good to see, and there's some work that we're doing on that. I think that all of that is still emerging, and I think that our view is that it would be wrong to start imposing that just at this moment in time. I think that there might be another chapter where that might be the right time to do that. Bruce, before I bring you in, I'm going to let Stuart come in with his question, and then I'll bring you in, Bruce. The first part is, are you planning in having a smart card to improve the security? I've got two here. I've just, I suppose that I found them in three. I've just downloaded the XML data of both those cards. I now know the birthday and full name of the individual who holds those cards, not understanding the fact that it's not printed on the outside of the card. In other words, there is no security whatsoever in preventing me from accessing the data on those Itso cards. The other wee question is, Itso cards currently are 4K and 16K, is there enough space on the card to support the number of applications that we might require? Bruce, I'll let you answer the previous question and that one at the same time. I'm grateful for that, convener. Charlie will be able to come in and do the technical stuff. Just a point that I wanted to make, I think that it's important to remember that our card that we've got in the west of Scotland that we've developed over the last few years, people used to ask us why did it take you so long to get a smart card up and running for a subway which is only at 15 stations? As Charlie outlined earlier, it wasn't that. The technical aspects of it weren't a problem, it was getting the business rules right. Rightly or wrongly, making no judgement on it whatsoever. We have got 50 bus operators, we've got a rail company, we've got ferry companies, we've got us, we've got various others and that's the market in which we're operating. Over the last five years, we've gone out there and tried to get the operators on board and we've been very successful in that now. I think we've got the most commercially successful transport smart card in Scotland with over 170,000 cards out there, over £20 million worth of transactions. Just coming on to Stuart's point, the security of the data I think is absolutely key to any kind of trust that the customer has with you. I think that that's essential and anything that can be done through this advisory board or whatever, through the new act, is essential. Just coming back to a point that David made, as far as we're aware, that's the way that it will work with this advisory board for smart card, is that when the minister has a particular view or is looking for advice on something, he'll seek counsel from this advisory board and it won't be a case of directing a local authority or an RTP or however it might be to bring in a scheme or bring in an arrangement, it'll be directing them towards the legislation that's available to them. That's as far as we're aware, which is a much different thing to directing an authority to actually do something. The legislation is there within the 2001 Transport Act about setting up a ticketing arrangement or scheme, an arrangement is where the operators have got together and got a ticketing system together and a scheme is where the public authority come in and bring one in in the absence of an arrangement. That is available and that I think will be continuing through the new legislation and the powers of this advisory board. Paul, I can bring you in briefly before we move to the next question. Briefly, what my colleagues have said are support. Just a brief perspective from the tourist point of view, we've talked from residents and we've talked from your constituents and customers, but of course tourists and tourism is a huge industry for the country. Don't necessarily have the same access in the way that residents do and therefore the point of simply being able to use contactless in the way that we all can if we go to London tomorrow is very important for certain parts of the economy, so just thinking it from different economic and residence points of view is something that the committee might want to bear in mind. Paul, that's very helpful. Thank you for that. The next question is from Peter. Thank you, convener, and good morning, gentlemen. I'm going to move on to one of the big parts of the bell is low-emission zones. The first question is very fundamental to all the members of the committee, and it's a yes, no answer, really. Do you support the principle of establishing lezeds in Scotland? That's the first basic, and it's just a quick... Okay, Gordon. Yes, provided they're fully funded. Charlie? Absolutely, and I agree with my colleague on that as well. Jim? Yes, provided that all the carrots don't go into one council area and all these things go into adjacent council areas. Bruce? Yes, and provided that it's not just about emissions from vehicles, it's also about complementary measures delivered by councils and RTPs and other partners in terms of traffic management bus priority as well, and funding, as Gordon said. Paul? Yes, as long as it's part of a wider approach to place making in an area, not purely just a transportation and emissions issue. And David? Yes, I agree with all of that as well, that low-emission zones are reduced emissions and be achieved in various ways, bus priority being one of them, and buses should be seen as part of the solution, not as part of the problem, but definitely yes. So the answer is yes, Barton, your next question. That's all very positive, and I'm pleased to hear that, but we do know that funding is an issue, and that was going to be one of my questions, but you've already answered that one. The bill gives the ability of local authorities to devise schemes appropriate to their circumstances. The problem with that, of course, is that you might get different schemes in different areas and confusion for travellers. Do you think that the proposals in the bill strike the right balance between consistency across Scotland and the ability for local authorities to design a scheme suitable for themselves? Gordon? Yes, Scots is content with the proposals. We do think that one size does not fit all, and we are content with the flexibility that is provided for local authorities to find appropriate local solutions to the local issues. Jim, would you like to come in on that? I guess just to illustrate what I said earlier about carrots and sticks. If a city introduces a scheme and it's within the control of the city, the carrots are cleaner air, less congestion, more reliable bus trips, and funding coming into that authority to improve all of those things. Whereas neighbouring authorities that will have constituents and commuters coming from those authorities into that city, single occupancy cars in particular, those people will have to look for alternative means of getting to the city, be it an upgraded car or better bus services or active travel, whatever it may be. I think that it's important that that wider perspective, that regional perspective, is taken into account so that the benefits of an LEZ are equitable. David, do you have a view from that? Yes, I think that we are in a different position from the urban authorities in not having these council boundaries close to the conurbation. We do have an air quality management area in the centre of Inverness, so it is an issue for us, but the bill requires the objectives of a low emissions zone to be set out, and I think that it's good that that goes beyond just strictly speaking reducing emissions. I mentioned bus priorities before, traffic reduction, modal shift, funding, as other members of the panel have said, is clearly an issue. Traditionally, in Highland, we have put money into supporting rural bus services where they are not economic. We have not really put money into bus services to encourage people out of their cars in the more populated areas. I think that that is something that might be a side effect, a beneficial one of this. Again, subject to funding. You have all said that you welcome the ability to have different schemes, but nobody has really addressed the issue. Do you not feel that this is going to create confusion among the general public? You might have a vehicle that is legal to drive into Edinburgh, but it is not legal to drive into Glasgow, and I can see that creating big problems for drivers at least in the initial phases. Do you not accept that view? Jim, do you want to come in and then I'll let Charlie come in, and then I'd like to take a supplementary from John Finnie to say. Jim? Sure, just briefly. In particular, in terms of what vehicles are allowed into a low emissions zone, my view is that that should be a national, a nationally agreed set of criteria, so that you avoid the issue that you've just described, where you can access one city with a certain vehicle, but not another. From a Scotch perspective, we think that what is proposed is reasonable. We do think that it is important that the rules prevailing to a particular LEZ are obviously clearly explained, and that would have to be via signage. John, do you want to come in with a supplementary? Thank you, convener. It's a question for David, and you talked about an air quality management zone in Edinburgh, so I can be parochial, but it does have wider application too. I wonder if there's a feeling for those areas who are not likely to be involved in the initial schemes that this legislation, if it like, provides some comfort that they won't act on issues, because someone who's been affected by this—and we know that air quality is a significant killer— will not be bothered about legislation if a local authority hasn't taken steps to protect its citizens, they'll quite legitimately sue. I wonder if you have concerns about that. Protect say in relation to Inverness, where the local authority was positively encouraging people to drive in the city centre in this particular air quality zone. That's a nice one to be put on the spot with. I haven't seen that myself, because it hasn't come in the passenger transport direction. I'd like to link that with the bus partnerships. If we are addressing air quality through the partnership arrangements, whether that's bus priority or vehicle types, we have a number of electric buses in Inverness, for example, and I was dubious of some of the modelling that was done of vehicle pollution because it was based on average bus fleets rather than taking the account of the electrical vehicles that stagecoach have with us. Looking at it in the round taking and other aspects of the bill, I think that there's an opportunity to look at the whole thing in the most strategic way, but as for your direct question, I think that the liability of a scheme isn't introduced. I think that I'd have to pass on that one. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Peter, you've got a follow-up question. Yeah, well, I would just drill down a bit more. Much of the detail relating to LEZs is to be set out in regulations currently under development by Scottish Government, and we asked some questions about that of them last week. But I just wonder what input have you guys had in getting the detail of what an LEZ looks like into this bill? Bruce? Thank you, chair. We've had a meeting, I think, last week with the relevant civil servants from TES about how a low-emission zone would work in practice, and I re-iterated to them the point that I made earlier on in supporting the LEZs that are real key factors in this. In Glasgow City Council, I've acknowledged that. I think that a report that they had done was that complementary measures are essential. I think that it is important that we take, if we're looking at a measure such as a low-emission zone, that we take a holistic view and an integrated view. We understand that that will have wider implications across the network, the transport offer that's there for the travelling public. We need to get that done in a manner that is a co-ordinated way. We'll look at bus priority measures, traffic management measures, the public transport offer that's out there to encourage people to travel more sustainably. They're listened very well to me, and they're more than aware that this is something that they will have to deal with very carefully and in a round-type way. We're reassured that, from what we've seen as this goes through, it becomes legislation that the guidance and the regulations will be hugely important. The key point for us is that, when those ancillary measures that we're talking about are part of a low-emission zone, there has to be some way within the LEZ documentation of ensuring commitment from partners to deliver. I'll expand on what Bruce said. Specifically in relation to the Glasgow LEZ, which is obviously the first of these to progress, I'm aware that our colleagues in Glasgow have been working closely with Transport Scotland officials in relation to fleshing out the detail of that and the experience of that is now beginning to flow through into the legislation. I can assure you that there is good dialogue in those kinds of topics. Paul, you were looking as if you didn't want to answer, but I wondered if you did on that. I think that we've not had as much dialogue with Transport Scotland officials as we might have liked. That's perhaps not their fault, it's maybe ours as much, so maybe it sounds like the dialogue in the east is not as advanced as it is in the west. I think that Jim's point about designing holistic solutions for areas as a whole, effectively for travel to work areas, rather than simply dealing with specific parts of, for example, in Edinburgh city centre, we need to understand that kind of holistic knock-on. I do think that not only people have talked about complementary measures and I think that's right, but I think that working, for example, with the commercial haulage sector on not only their standards, but on access and egress arrangements, I think that some kind of detail on the powers that we have to bring operators like that to the table needs to be included in detail in the regulation. I suspect discussions may suddenly increase. Jamie, you've got the next question. Thank you, convener. Just to make some pragmatic points here, my experience of living in London and the congestion charge was introduced as it caused huge amounts of displacement of congestion, so drivers would park on the peripheral of zones rather than in the zones or driving into zones. Small businesses would use diesel vans outside of the zones instead of in the zones. Bus operators would move all their green vehicles into the zones to avoid the fines and the charges, etc. Is there a worry that those very localised city zones may cause problems for residents and businesses outside of them? The other point that I'd like to make is around those who are unable to use public transport or active travel to commute in and out of cities. The reality is that many people simply rely on the car as a mode of transport. Will they see this simply as just another tax on the motorist? Who would like to head off on that? I'll take Jim and then Gordon. I think that it emphasises the need to look at this holistically, as Paul said earlier. There will be displacement and there would need to be a fair bit of work done to model and anticipate what that displacement would be. Again, if you look at Edinburgh, for example, it would put more stress on the Edinburgh city bypass, which is a route that's currently under significant stress at the moment. To answer the first part of your question absolutely, that needs to be predicted and addressed prior to the introduction of an LEZ. From my reading of the proposed legislation, there is an opportunity for certain exemptions within that for certain types of vehicles, mainly focused on emergency vehicles and vehicles of that nature. I think that it's a valid point to raise in respect of people who have no choice but to use their individual transport. I think that that's something that still has to be addressed within the proposed legislation. Gordon, and then Paul. I'd broadly echo what Jim has just said. I'm certainly aware that in terms of the Glasgow LEZ, there have been concerns from surrounding councils, at least two of them, in terms of the potential of more polluting public transport vehicles buses, finding their way into those council areas, while, as you've alluded to, the greener vehicles are within the LEZ. That is an issue that we need to be mindful of going forward. I used to work in Greater Manchester in a congestion charge. Ballot was lost from us precisely the reasons that you set out from suburban authorities, fearing exactly the displacement issues that you addressed. My substantive point was that we, in designing LEZs—this is what I tried to say before—need to be part of a wider transport and place-making solution. Many people will always be reliant on their car, but the way in which we design networks can help people, for example, to take cars to certain places and then be able to transfer easily onto other modes—park and ride, park and walk and so on. It's thinking about the design of the network as a whole, rather than purely thinking about it purely from an emissions point of view. I think that, in that transport design piece, we can combat a number of the issues that you raise. Charlie, you want to come in and then I'll go back to Jamie's. I think that Paul has covered that very well, but I'll just take a couple of points. I think that we have had quite a number of discussions with Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland about that potential displacement. I think that it would be interesting for the committee to hear from the operators on that. Obviously, there is a big challenge for certainly one of the big operators in Glasgow and the investment that is required in the fleet. I think that one of the interesting things as a learning point that has come from the first low emission zone in Glasgow has been that it's been felt as if it's been all on bus. It wasn't actually presented holistically at the beginning. I think that we're over that point now, that it's understood that it's a longer-term solution. Just to echo Paul's point, the whole point about that regional assessment is so important. The work that Scots and SPT do across authorities in terms of getting the understanding of that, therefore, means that it's not just complementary measures within Glasgow City Centre about bus speeds. It may well be further investment in strategic parking ride sites and actually marketing that and making that clear that that's a really good solution for people. So your points are very valid. I'd like to add very constructive answers. The problem that I have is that, given your answers, there's discussion around more modelling, displacement, for example, more consultation with surrounding local authorities. Everyone is saying that it needs to be part of a holistic approach to the transportation needs of a city and commuters in and out of cities, and that's all well and good. The problem is that we have a bill before us here that we're looking at which only introduces LEZs and nothing else. As a committee, we're faced with the dichotomy of proceeding with the well intentions of the LEZs, but not addressing any of the other issues that you've said today. So how do we as a committee progress with the introduction of the LEZs, which I think there is wide support for, but how do we do that in a way that ensures that all this is done before the LEZs are introduced? Should there be a delay to the introduction? Should the timescale be longer? Should the grace periods be longer? How do you think we should approach that? Charlie, and I think the grace period is an important point that Jamie might. I think we all did agree that that was important, and I can understand the concerns looking narrow just at that in terms of bringing that in a bill. Certainly in the west of Scotland, the place that that then gets properly analysed is the regional transport strategy. For example, SPT has just commenced that next regional transport strategy, so over the next two years learning both from Glasgow but whatever comes through the bill is where that flows through into regional assessments. It's incumbent upon us, as the regional transport strategy, with my SPT hat on, and all those 12 authorities to come together to understand not just the LEZs, but the other parts of the bill at a practical level. How is that going to get introduced as well at a strategic level? How is it going to get assessed? Certainly from the west of Scotland, and I'm sure the other RTPs will echo this, that's the place that we would consider it that you strategically assess it and that you're not left just LEZs and it's sitting there on its own. Jim? Just pretty much what Charlie has said. I mean, we're all, all seven RTPs are charged with providing a regional transport strategy and thereafter, to introduce it, funds permitting. So there is already a statutory basis for consideration of things such as LEZs within a regional transport strategy in place and that's one option that you might have. Jamie, do you? No, I'm fine, thank you. Well, then we move on, if we may, to the next questions, which I believe are yours, John. Thanks very much, convener. Yes, looking at parking, I think Mike Rumbles and I are both going to be asking you questions. I think I'm focusing more on probably cars and the residential areas and Mike Rumbles may be talking more about delivery and unloading and the commercial side of things. So to start with, broadly again, do you support the principles on the prohibition of pavement parking? I have a constituency and I don't think, I think there'll be others like it, where we often have quite narrow roads and the pavements are reasonably wide and the police would say the most sensible thing is to park with two wheels on the pavement and two wheels on the road, you're not blocking the pavement, you're not blocking the road and I just wonder if this bill is going to lead to lots of wide pavements being open but lots of roads being blocked or displacement of vehicles. So in principle, do you agree with all of this? Is it to draconian? What do you think? I see Gordon wants to come in and poll. In principle, yes, we think that there is a need to have tools to deal with the very real problem of pavements being obstructed. However, we do have fairly significant concerns in terms of where we are currently sitting. We have an on-going dialogue with Transport Scotland around the parking standards that are going to underpin this legislation and that will provide the detail of when councils can exempt sections of road or sections of pavement or don't exempt them. You are quite correct in terms of we have many areas of high-density housing. Many of those also currently have narrow roads and narrow footpaths and already have significant parking pressures currently. I think that there is still further work to be done to better understand how all of this is going to feed through. While we support the principle of having a solution to the problem, we need to be clear that the potential solutions and how it is going to feed through in terms of implementation are practical. From a local authority point of view, first of all, we need to see what the rules are in terms of the parking standards. That is essential to allow us to answer the sort of questions that you will ask us quite reasonably. Secondly, there is going to be a considerable effort required to assess roads across council areas in terms of the exemption criteria. There is then considerable resource potentially required to go through some type of order process, which apparently is not going to be a traffic regulation TRO type order process but must be something similar. That is the potential to be administratively cumbersome. Beyond that, there is the question of signing and lining if we are going to mark out parking bays that are part on the road and part on the carriage way. Beyond that, there is the question of enforcement. Some councils do not have decriminalised parking. Some of those that do do not have evening enforcement, which will generally be the issue in residential areas. While Scots is supportive in principle of the need to have tools to deal with the very real current issues, we have a view that there is significant further work to be done to fully understand the practicalities of implementation. Jim? Just again to emphasise the point of looking at this holistically. For example, if the pavement issue was addressed as part of an LEZ where you might anticipate less single occupancy cars coming into a city, you might anticipate a means to perhaps extend the control parking zone and therefore reduce the number of cars that might be coming in and looking to park. It is really just to make that point about keeping this at a holistic level. Gordon's points, if I may, which I support. On the previous question, we all said yes, but I would say on this one up to a point that clearly we welcome the intent, but the range of exemptions is worrying, and on clearer may lead to some unintended consequences. The basics of the law are that you should not drive on the pavement, and this appears to provide some kind of legal basis for driving on the pavement, which we do not support. We think, as Gordon suggested, that the enforcement dimension seems to put the burden of proof on local authorities, which in many circumstances will find it very hard to prove and therefore issue PCNs accordingly. Convener, I do not know if you have had a representation from Living Street Scotland, but they are certainly giving us a pretty Tory time in terms of what they believe the implications of the exemptions to be on pedestrians across the country. I think that the intent is good, but the devil that is in the detail is far from being satisfactory. Yes, similar to the others on the panel, we support the proposals. The qualifications, again, are the resources that are required for enforcement, and I am picking up Mr Mason's question. The unintended consequences that could arise is more typical in our area that we have narrow roads and narrow pavements, rather than narrow roads and broad pavements. That can apply in villages, and it can apply in suburban housing schemes that were built, not designed for present levels of car ownership. There are areas in which buses already have difficulty getting through their routes because of parked cars. There is a risk that that can increase, and, of course, the same applies to emergency vehicles. My traffic colleague is quite clear that the duty of traffic law is to keep roads clear and unabstructed. Therefore, barring pavement parking might mean that people are having to park somewhere else altogether. I can see difficulties with that coming from people who cannot park outside their house. Those are some practical consequences, but that is not to deny the benefits of keeping pavements clear for those who find abstracted pavements an obstacle for reasons that you all know. A couple of things—there is a lot around this, so I will try to keep it narrow and tighten it down. Two things that have been mentioned are that there will be more detail coming later. I am interested if you folk are involved in that detail or you are being consulted on it or you are feeding into it or how that is working or if that is purely the Government. Secondly, resources have been mentioned, which clearly is a problem for councils. Will the penalty charges cover the costs of the enforcement? My feeling is—I stand to be corrected—that, with double yellow lines, they are more strictly enforced in the busy town centres high streets than they are in the outlying residential areas. My concern about that would also be that the parking will be very strictly adhered to and controlled in the centres, but maybe less so in the peripheral areas, despite a blind person needing to get down the pavement and all that. In terms of the dialogue that we have had with Transport Scotland, it has been good. George Henry at Transport Scotland runs a group that engages with all the local authorities or at least seeks to engage with all the councils. Through that group, the development of the parking standards has been taken forward, but, as I said earlier, that still has some way to go to get to a definitive set of rules that we will be looking at in terms of how we are actually going to implement exemptions. In terms of costs, the view within Scots is that the bill on the associated financial memorandum substantially underestimates the costs that are going to be involved for local authorities. By that, I am referring to the time that is required to assess roads, to process TROs or whatever order process is required, to sign and line whatever exemptions are required and then to enforce. I certainly would not think that the level of income from PCNs would go any significant way towards meeting those costs. Do you want to follow that up, John? Does anyone else want to come in on that? Jamie, why don't you ask your question, and then we'll go to my room. Thank you. It sort of carries on the theme. I guess it's similar to the theme I had on Ellie Zed. Do you think that this is the right approach? What the Government is doing is putting a blanket ban on this. There's no doubt that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. I think that there's wide acceptance of that. Are we creating inadvertent consequences by having a blanket ban that then requires local authorities to apply for exemptions under national standards that are yet unknown? It creates a huge amount of work for local authorities. Would it be better to have a reverse scheme where councils could apply for specific street bans on the roads that are problematic? Rather than the other way round, which is the approach that the Government is taking, where it's the whole thing is legal, and if you want to opt out of it, you'll need to apply to have an opt out on specific roads and streets. My worry, again, is displacement. Huge amounts of cars have not been able to park at all. We cannot simply just ban parking where it is possible at the moment, where those vehicles are going to go. There are often no other parking opportunities in our suburban areas for those vehicles. I have absolutely no idea where all those cars are going to go, and I'm yet to hear any evidence to give any suggestions as to where they might go. I'll bring in Chairman then Gordon, and then I'd like to move to Mike Rumbleson. Just very briefly, I think that either way there's a huge level of bureaucracy that would have to be gone through to either exempt footpaths from a blanket ban or introduce footpaths that are to be able to have traffic removed from them. I suspect that the view in taking the bill forward was that it's probably an easier exercise to go for a blanket and then remove those that are exempt from that. There's no real answer. I don't think that it just depends on these proportions as to which option would be better. Gordon? I think that the point that you make about displacement is a very valid one, and beyond displacement from a single street there's the potential for the cumulative effect whereby housing areas are often very similar in character, so if you're required to displace from one street you're probably displacing out the way and you have a very significant cumulative effect. I think that in answer to your question I think that the devil will be in the detail here in terms of what we're allowed to exempt and how we're allowed to exempt it. So for example, could we get to a position where it's recognised that if an area has worked fine historically that can simply be exempted? Now if we got to that position I think things would be a whole lot easier and it would be far more practical but we've still got a bit to go to get to that position. Paul, you want us to come in? Just very briefly, your question comes back to what we're trying to achieve with these objectives of the bill. If we're trying to achieve clear footways to ensure that people with any kind of mobility issue or with a buggy or whatever it might be can go about their business just like anybody else can it would lead to a set of regulations. If we're trying to ensure that everybody can park on the street, you know in Edinburgh we have some extremely densely occupied parts of the city whereas you say there would be a problem but I wonder whether we're conflating policy objectives using the same instrument here. Okay, I'm going to move on to Mike and Bruce. I'm sure you'll get a chance to bring up the points in some of his questions. Thank you very much, convener. This does flow and I want to focus particularly on one of the exemptions because we're all interested in effective legislation not ineffective legislation and it strikes me certainly from the written evidence that we've received in looking at the bill in section 47 it says the parking prohibitions do not apply where a vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery collection loading of unloading and any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes and East Dunbarnshire Council and written evidence to us have said that unless an enforcement officer remains at a parked vehicle for longer than 20 minutes visualises the infringement taking place the driver will be able to argue their case and say that if not remain there longer than 20 minutes and that this isn't a reasonable expectation for an enforcement officer to undertake so the point I'm asking is I personally think and I'd like to hear your views of whether you think the same I personally think that the well you know it's well intentioned putting this exemption in for businesses that want to unload but putting it there for a continuous period of 20 minutes doesn't become a maximum it becomes the norm and how would you possibly enforce a restriction like this because another one somebody else could park for 20 minutes and another person could park for 20 minutes and so to look at Paul's point if our whole intention is to help vulnerable path users not to go about the business where where the path aren't blocked this is a coaching horses through this whole legislation if this is not changed I'd like to know what you what you think Paul you are nodding vigorously I mean in a way I think you've probably said far more eloquently than I did in my introduction the reservations we have about the drafting of this particular part I think the intention is good but the exemptions are too wide ranging and as you say in some senses unenforceable and more work needs to be done on that detail would anyone else like to come in on that please just to emphasize I think the whole thing really looking across the whole proposal for the bill and many aspects of this as the unintended consequences David mentioned about the impact in bus services and not just local bus services but also things like our demand responsive transport service my bus which has got no set route and it goes to through communities and I know there are particular areas where it is pretty much wholly reliant when people parking the pavement in order to be able to get access to somebody you know people over 80 who are unable to use mainstream public transport sometimes the only time when they get out the house in a week is when the my bus can come and pick them up so just a general point again you know you've heard pretty much the entire panel so we need to look at this in an integrated way and understand such impacts from a social point of view from an equality point of view on the groups who for example use our my bus service 500,000 passengers and counting last year there seem to be a general nodding there can I bring in Peter and then come back to you just on this parking thing which a very important part that I think is missing in this bell is is preventing parking opposite a dropped kerbs dropped kerbs are absolutely vital to folk disabled people and buggies and stuff and I think that well correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's anything in this bell says parking opposite dropped kerbs is going to be illegal anyone want to go on that I mean you seem to be agreeing okay Mike do you want to follow up yeah I just want to go specifically I mean I said to the bill team last week that they're drafting of this and I asked them specifically about the 20 minutes and it seemed to be plucked from from the other doesn't seem to be any evidential basis for putting 20 minutes was ability to to unload if the government came forward or I mean if they don't I probably will intend to do to bring an amendment to remove the 20 minutes in section 47 subsection c it says the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery collection loading or unloading full stop if we remove the 20 minute allowance if you like would that would that help in the situation I'd like to know what you think in terms of enforcement that the 20 minute limit is not that much different from the type of loading restrictions we currently pull is commonplace in town centre so the parking attendant has to observe the vehicle and has to come back 11 or 12 minutes later before they can issue a pcn now that is quite clonky because it's a period of lost time and I would agree that extending that to 20 minutes makes it even more cumbersome however I would I would accept in principle there is a need to provide exemptions of that type to allow people to go about their day to day business I would suspect that leaving it open ended would cloud matters even further because individuals may disappear into a property and argue that we're going about some business associated with loading and unloading and stay for a period beyond 20 minutes whether 20 minutes is the right figure or not at least it's a kind of clear cut-off point that would allow the parking attendant to be entirely clear as to observing the vehicle and then issuing a pcn 21 or 22 minutes later. I just follow that up because that's an important point at the moment it's for you know loading and unloading on the road but we're talking about loading and loading on the pavement and that's quite a significant difference because for that period of time any one with mobility issues will probably have to be forced onto the road if they can get down there so it is quite quite a different thing do you accept that there is a difference between those two things I think this is all about compromises we're having to accommodate many different parts of society here and the aspirations of local businesses and local households to go about their daily business so as I say I think there are a number of compromises will be required here and it's about finding a balance John can I bring you in on that one Paul I'll bring you in I want to try John for me to say if it enlarges well indeed it's perhaps most likely Mr Lawrence I was going to go to it it is with we're talking about effectively the if it were this to pass the retrospective application with existing treats I wanted to know if perhaps you had input to planning decisions to ensure that a lot of these issues are designed out mention was made of living streets and some of the more progressive approaches there hopefully any new infrastructure setting aside maybe gap sites and town centres and city centres this will be designed out Mr Lawrence will that be the case that would certainly be an intention albeit it's something that I was hoping to have the opportunity to say later so maybe I'll sneak it in now that it partly dependent for us not just on the planning process but on the way in which the roads redetermination process works which we think could be much smoother and is not particularly mentioned in the legislation at all so that's an important tool in that box as it were but I think I think the issue that Mr Rumbles raises is is absolutely we're not talking about parking the street we're talking about on the pavement and I've personally yet to hear a justification from a trader as to why they need to park on a pavement and it's not clear now I think that that's the number of the issue and that the secondary issues is the local flavour of it so it might be times when we say no time is acceptable at all so between certain hours we're saying you might you know people might make an occasion for saying we need to be able to park on the pavement for these reasons and we say that's fine but within those hours that's it so either leaving it open ended or saying 20 minutes at any time of the day is unacceptable you know we need much more local variance for that but yes you're right particularly in terms of new development to designing this issue issues out but some of the tools we have for that are still slightly clonky okay thank you I went to ask you to to qualify of parking on a pavement for 20 minutes and then shifting the the lorry forward one meter constitutes reparking because that may be too difficult but it is a question I've raised before Stuart thank you very much convener and now the exciting subject of roadworks the Stirling council has commented on the proposed repeal of section 61 in the road scotland act 1984 implying that all roadworks would be authorised under section 109 of the new roads and streetworks act 1999 instead but their particular issue is does that leave us with adequate consultation with bus operators in particular so that they can take account of roadworks and bus punctuality and reliability who'd like to I recognize Stirling is not necessarily represented here Gordon do you want to have a go at that in terms of how roads authorities would typically deal with something like this we'd go through a road closure order process and that's it seeks to accommodate roadworks of whatever type that we would continue to do that before or after any new legislation but but I think the point that Stirling council are seeking to make I'm putting words in their mouth so if I get it wrong I'm wrong is that there isn't therefore under the new arrangements a legal duty on them to consult with in particular bus operators or is that a mistaken comment by me the road closure process would involve publishing a road closure notice so it would be made available to the general public the locally elected members the bus operators so that they would all get an advanced period of notice that's fine and I think that that helpfully closes that one down subject to any further information and the the other one there are duties created by the bill about signage ffencing and lighting for site supervisors and operators and qualifications of them are you content with what the bill says on that subject yeah we we did a kind of small survey of our well a survey of all our 32 councils and we got a response of about two-thirds of them and only two of these councils were not not yet doing what is currently required of the bill and both of these councils recognised the need to move in that direction and indeed we're already doing so. David Ratikam. All right. Yes thank you I'd like to just come back on Mr Stevenson's first question the one from Stirling and certainly it's an issue with us and I know from colleagues in the association of transport co-ordinating officers that it's an issue around the country is liaison between bus operations and roadworks now a lot the time certainly through our council it works fairly well but there are some utilities who can push the boundaries let's say and I would certainly welcome a statutory requirement to consult with bus operators I think it'd be very helpful. Just to be clear when the boundaries are pushed that is not in contravention with the statutory position it's merely an unhelpful practice is that what we've been told? I'm being diplomatic with my work. Well there may be time to be undiplomatic if you want change. I know that the roadworks commissioner has had concerns about lack of notice being provided or works being claimed to be emergency when they're not genuinely emergency works and these kind of issues so in for stronger enforcement powers which are in the bill for the roadworks commissioner I think very welcome. It might be convenient useful perhaps if we I know that we're asking questions about the roadworks commission we may want to ask that person. Yes just just before we do can I just ask a question there was an indication there that on road closure orders there ought to be consultant consultation with with bus companies and other road users do you believe that the current system allows all businesses that are going to be affected by those road closures to feed in before the orders published and just so there's no diviety I am part of a farming business which sometimes is affected by road closures so if anyone would like to make a comment but as a general comment do you think all businesses are given enough chance to consult for roads closed Gordon? I think you have to be very careful about the expectation which the consultation process would raise. It really depends on the nature of the works being undertaken and whether they can be carried out safely with a road still open. Frequently it will not be possible to keep a road open and do certain works. I would be cautious about going through a consultation process in that scenario because that would lead to the expectation that the road closure might potentially be avoidable. The obligations on roads authorities when managing roadworks and dealing with individual utilities is to satisfy themselves as far as they reasonably can that the works will be undertaken in such a way as to minimise disruption to the travelling public. There is a kind of inherent weakness and it maybe goes back to what David alluded to. Occasionally you will be left with the impression that works are taking longer than they might with a particular utility however frequently they will come back with some sort of quite plausible technical explanation as to why they have to do this or that and works do not appear to be progressing quite as quickly as the public and roads authorities might like. However, with those sort of matters we are really often in the hands of the technical experts within the electricity companies or the gas companies, the people that know their own networks best. Perfect point to bring in Maureen. Just before I come to my main question, obviously previous legislation gave councils the ability to appoint a person who could co-ordinate utilities digging up the road so that if the gas were in and the water needed to do work in the same street that it was done at the same time. Has that worked? Have you seen a reduction in the number of times specific roads have been dug up or have you managed to get that co-operation between the utilities and now increasingly fibre optic laying companies? Gordon, do you want to try that? It probably does not work as well as we would like. The number of times utilities will go in and share that the same opening trench is limited. There might be good reasons for that. The power companies will not want to lay cables beside gas mains for very good reasons. It is certainly a source of frustration to the travelling public of the amount of roadworks in a particular area. However, I think that we need to be clear that roads are not just for getting people from A to B. They are very important conduits for critical public infrastructure and these power companies and gas companies need to be given reasonable opportunity to access their plant and do whatever is necessary. It is the job of the roads authority to seek, as far as possible, to ensure that that is done in a way that mitigates inconvenience to the travelling public. Typically, it will require that works are done off-peak or are done on Sundays. What do you want to come in? We will not be welcome what the bill is suggesting. I think that there may be practice, which may be outside legislation or in guidance, where we encourage utilities to improve their general communications. To your question, convener, have there been occasions in this city where utility providers have not communicated effectively with businesses and residents? The answer to that question is yes. I am not sure that the bill takes us in the right direction, but it is much more about day-to-day work with their officials, with elected members, with community councils and so on, and establishing relationships that work effectively. I am not sure that you can entirely do through legislation that you are absolutely right about fibre providers. We have them effectively competing with each other in Edinburgh at the moment. We try to play, as Rhodes authority, in the way that Gordon sets out a co-ordinating role in that. I think that at times that could be strengthened and the bill is helpful in that regard, but it is as much about good practice as about the legislative context. The Scottish Roadworks commissioner will gain new inspection and enforcement powers, some of which will be applicable to local authorities. Do you support the introduction of those proposals? Paul, we do. Gordon? Yes. What does it do? Sing anyone who is putting their hand up to say that they disagree. I am assuming that that is a positive word. Are you happy with that and we will move on to the next question. Next question is from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. Thank you, convener. It is a small but important section at the end of the bill about regional transport partnership finance. The bill proposes three changes to the current governance of the finance. It will require constituent councils to fund the balance of the RTP's estimated costs rather than the actual costs. It will amend the local government Scotland Act 1975 to allow RTPs to hold and operate capital funds, renewal and repair funds and insurance funds in a similar way to councils do. It will extend provisions in the local government Scotland Act 1994 to cover RTPs, grant RTPs the power to borrow and lend money and operate a loan fund. Do you support those proposals or do they go far enough? Who would like to—oh, all the hands up. Bruce Fuller by Charlie. Yes, we support them very much. It is something that we have been lobbying the Scottish Government and the Scottish Executive previously for some time release since RTPs were established. We believe that this was some form of blip in the legislative process that allowed us to take a much longer and holistic view of the transport network and how we plan to deliver for that and just to open up that flexibility and put those on an equal footing with councils. So I think that we again will also benefit from us being able to do that. I am very much supportive of those. Okay, Charlie. Thank you for that point. We have lobbied very hard for this. This has put us in a difficult position year after year where we have many, many projects, certainly in the SPT area, and we have had a huge workaround to this problem, shall we say? My finance colleagues tell me, so the ability to have this flexibility and even in some of the stuff that we are already doing will be hugely beneficial. Does anyone else want to add anything to that? If you are happy with that, we will move on to the final question, which comes from Mike Rumbles. I just want to brief question on canals. Not always at the top of the agenda with transport, but I am very well aware of how important they are to local communities in Edinburgh, the Union Canal, the canal festivals. Communities have got their own, I mean I just give one example, Paul with the Church of Edinburgh, it has got its own community landings through the waterways board and it is great. All of a sudden the canals are shut. This bill just mentions a requirement to change the board members. Would there not be an opportunity to put in legislation of reinforcement that the board should have a duty to keep the canals open and navigable? What do you think of that? Who would like to answer that? Well, somebody has got to cover it. You are all looking the other way, Paul. I have to say that it is not an area that I was prepared to talk about, but I think that the answer based on our experience with exactly the area that you are talking about is yes, and we do sometimes have that issue of co-ordination, so I think that that would be welcome. Does anyone else want to go to Gordon? I think that you can draw a parallel with authorities having a statutory duty to maintain road networks. If you have responsibility for maintaining a canal network, it does not seem unreasonable that that is reflected in the statute. I think that that brings us to the end of our question, so I would like to thank you all for coming along. I am now going to briefly suspend the meeting to allow you to depart, and I would ask members to stay in their seats, please. We now move back into formal session. This is the agenda item 3, which is UK statutory instruments, environment, food and rural affairs and sea fishing enforcement. This is consideration of letters from the Scottish Government concerning two UK statutory instruments. The Scottish Government has written, advising the committee, that it is given its permission to allow the UK Government to make these instruments on its behalf. Does the committee agree to note this correspondence, or does anyone wish to make a comment? Stuart, you wish to make a comment. I am content to note both items of correspondence. However, in relation to the sea fishing enforcement regulations, I make the point that, in essence, what it is about is allowing a continuity of the south of the border officers to come in in hot pursuit, and to the Scottish Wards to very much support that. I just do not see any corresponding arrangements, or even no a third, necessary for Scottish officers to go to the south. I read at the bottom of what is page 6 in our papers provisions within these closer potential enforcement gap in the management UK and shore fisheries sector, and could indirectly provide an aid to preventing circumvention of Scottish regulations. I suggest that we might possibly write to the minister and ask what that means. That is all. I think that that is a fair point. I suggest that the committee notes the comments and asks the clerks to correspond with the Scottish Government officials to ascertain the position, but in the meantime, having noted those comments, the committee is just happy to note those two instruments. That is agreed, and that therefore concludes today's committee business. I now close the meeting. Y Llywodraeth Cymru