Transport (Scotland) Bill

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Good morning and welcome to the public part of the 23rd meeting in 2018 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I ask people to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent. No apologies have been received.

Agenda item 2 is our second evidence-taking session on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, and we will take evidence from local authorities, regional transport partnerships and their representatives. I welcome Gordon Mackay, chair, and Charlie Hoskins, member, Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland—that is quite a mouthful; Jim Grieve, head of programmes, south east of Scotland transport partnership, or SEStran; Bruce Kiloh, head of policy and planning, Strathclyde partnership for transport; Paul Lawrence, executive director of place, City of Edinburgh Council; and David Summers, principal passenger transport officer, Highland Council.

We want to ask you a series of questions. To those of you who have not given evidence to the committee before, I should say that anyone who wants to answer a question should catch my eye and I will bring them in. I shall try to do that in a balanced way, so please do not be offended if I do not ask all of you to respond to every single question. If I were to do that, we might well run out of time. Moreover, you do not need to touch your microphone buttons—that is all worked out and done for you.

Colin Smyth will ask the first question.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

I want to kick off with buses. Currently, the bill seeks to restrict new local authority bus companies to running only non-profit-making services that, frankly, commercial companies would not touch. Is such a restriction fair, or should local authority bus companies be allowed to run all bus services?

The Convener

Who would like to come in on that? Charlie, you can start off.

Charlie Hoskins (Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland)

Good morning. First, I should say that, as well as representing SCOTS, I play a senior director role in SPT, so I will be able to help with any questions that are put to my colleagues Bruce Kiloh and Gordon Mackay.

In our view, the provision is probably restrictive. At the moment, our funding for subsidised services, certainly in the west of Scotland, is of the order of £11 million per annum, which is effectively tendered to the same bus operators that run the commercial services. That is the difficulty that we face when we go back to the market in those areas.

The challenge in restricting things to socially necessary services is that, by their very nature, such services do not have major patronage numbers. Ultimately, if a service becomes quite successful, you can get a private operator coming in and saying, “Well, that looks pretty good now—let’s run a service here.” Moreover, in order to set all that up, you have to invest in depots, vehicles, people and all the processes that are involved.

The view—and certainly the view of SCOTS—is that there are some big challenges in that respect, and the committee might wish to look at whether the remit in that area of the bill should be broadened with regard to municipally owned services.

The Convener

I will let David Summers respond next and then come back to Paul Lawrence.

David Summers (Highland Council)

Highland Council has to some extent supported the power to have council-owned bus companies, and we are positive about the move. However, as our members have not specifically considered the part of the bill that is the subject of your question, I can speak only personally in response.

For a directly operated council service, such a restriction is probably appropriate, but an arm’s-length company or a council-owned company should have the same commercial freedom as any other company has. For anything that is on more than a modest scale, I support having a council-owned company. It is interesting that the bill does not mention council-owned companies, although it talks about council-operated bus services. That could be clarified as the bill progresses.

The Convener

I will bring in Bruce Kiloh and then take Stewart Stevenson’s supplementary question before I bring in Paul Lawrence.

Bruce Kiloh (Strathclyde Partnership for Transport)

I will amplify what Charlie Hoskins said. In discussions with Transport Scotland, we have been reassured that there will be opportunities through regulation and secondary legislation to look at such things. When people across Scotland look at Lothian Buses, they aspire to that. The issue is the definition of what is socially necessary, which differs across Scotland. Charlie Hoskins outlined our approach, which is to subsidise bus services. We have spread the £11 million a year that we have for supporting bus services ever more thinly, and we use community transport and demand-responsive transport through our MyBus service.

People’s definition of what is socially necessary in the Highlands will differ from the definition in more deprived areas of Glasgow. The bill provides an opportunity to widen the consideration of how a municipal company could operate.

The Convener

Stewart Stevenson wants to speak, but I will let Colin Smyth follow up that answer.

Colin Smyth

How has the Government ended up with introducing such a restrictive proposal in the bill? The consensus is that it is restrictive. When they gave evidence recently, Scottish Government officials said that they were in discussions about, in effect, potentially lifting the restriction. Have you discussed the issue with Transport Scotland officials and made the point about lifting the restriction?

The Convener

I do not want to cut out Paul Lawrence, but I think that the question is more for Bruce Kiloh.

Bruce Kiloh

From the outset, Transport Scotland officials have had a good level of engagement on the bill with regional transport partnerships, including SPT, and councils. That is certainly positive. In the past six or seven years, we have promoted a change to the framework for bus services through our bus policy and other initiatives, so our pushing has partly led to the current situation.

I do not want to say on behalf of Transport Scotland or the Scottish Government why the provision is restricted to socially necessary services, but I am aware of the competition angle—I make no judgment call on whether that is right. Bus operators run commercial services and, if a socially necessary service went on top of that, they would have a big issue. That is perhaps the background to where the Scottish Government is coming from.

We have been in dialogue with TS about how to widen the approach. As I said, perhaps the definition of social need could be looked at, as each area will have a view on that.

Colin Smyth

Can I respond briefly?

The Convener

Just briefly, as I want to let Paul Lawrence in.

Colin Smyth

I am a bit confused, because Bruce Kiloh still suggests a restrictive model. Why cannot we have the Lothian Buses model, in which a local authority-owned bus company runs in competition with the private sector? At the moment, there is no competition in the bus sector.

Bruce Kiloh

Lothian Buses is a fantastic bus company, but its history differs from the history of the development of the bus market in other areas. Edinburgh and the Lothians have two or three operators, but the west of Scotland, where we are, has about 60 operators—that is how the market has developed because of previous decisions.

The aspiration of some of the councils, regional transport partnerships and others has been to look at how the Lothian model could be applied in their areas. The elephant in the room, of course, is funding and how you can start off something like that with depots, pensions and vehicles. However, the bill at the moment would not allow the creation of a Lothian-type model, although I know that TS is considering how it could be widened to appease those who are anxious to have a Lothian-style model.

The Convener

I will bring in Paul Lawrence and then we will go to Mike Rumbles, who has a follow-on question.

Paul Lawrence (City of Edinburgh Council)

I have a brief comment that is linked to what Bruce Kiloh was saying. From an Edinburgh point of view, we benefit from the Lothian model in the way that members have discussed. I wanted to emphasise that point, because Bruce Kiloh is right to say that other areas have different histories, different circumstances and different markets. The Lothian model gives us, as a local authority, an opportunity to have a strategic relationship with a provider, looking not only at social requirements but at the economic growth requirements of the city and the economic and social dimensions of wider spatial planning. As a whole, it allows that holistic relationship, which I am not convinced current provisions would allow elsewhere.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

We were told last week by the civil service bill team that the bill will give power to the 32 councils to run their own bus companies, if that is their wish, but only on loss-making routes. We are interested in having effective legislation, so my question is this: how many of those 32 councils are likely to want to invest in all the human resources, depots and buses that would be required to create and run a loss-making service? I would like to know how many councils would do something like that.

The Convener

Who wants to answer for the 32 councils across Scotland?

Gordon Mackay (Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland)

Clearly, councils currently operate in a difficult financial environment, and I think that the number of councils that would take up the current offer would be somewhere between nil and very low.

The Convener

David Summers is anxious to comment but, before I bring him in, I will allow Stewart Stevenson to comment, and then we can tie things up.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

One of the things that are 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, and that 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 you might be able to justify it in individual circumstances, it disnae sound awfy good, and there is plenty of opportunity for gaming. Does my statement overplay the situation, or is it something that you recognise?

Charlie Hoskins

We see it pretty much on a day-to-day basis. There is a step before organisations such as SPT and local authorities step in, and a lot of hidden work goes on behind the scenes to convince the operator that it is not the right thing to do and that it should consider a bigger picture than purely one of profit. To be fair to operators, they often do consider that and they see it as a last resort if they have to pull a service out.

We work through socially necessary guideline criteria to see what type of service needs to be put in. One of the difficulties—and I hope that the committee will come on to this—is the data required to do that. We do not get the data from the operators that tells us how many passengers there are or their origin or destination, so one of the big things that the bill must address is the requirement for data, whatever framework is in place, whether it be a partnership or a franchise.

Stewart Stevenson

Are you allowed to see the data for the concession card scheme, because that would be part of it?

Charlie Hoskins

I would have to defer my answer and come back to the committee, as I am not 100 per cent certain on that point. However, to answer your question about what the dynamic then looks like, the dynamic for us is quite interesting, because we then go into the procurement legislation. We have introduced a more dynamic purchasing method to make it a little bit more efficient, but ultimately we are still going back to a market, and in some areas there may be only one operator or a couple of operators, which will take a view on what they believe is the right price, because then it would be a competitive tender situation.

What also happens quite often—and our committee members see this when we bring a proposal for approval—is that we will go back out again, because the returns that we get are simply unaffordable, and there is a lot of dialogue with operators about affordability.

There might well be an opportunity, which this committee might come to, from the partnership model, rather than the franchise model. If partnership provided the ability to share data a bit more, what was paid would in effect be a top-up cost rather than the cost of buying a whole chunk of a service. That is an interesting dynamic. I hope that that gives members more insight.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

David Summers will not be surprised to hear that my questions are for him. We have talked about socially necessary routes. Could any routes in Highland that are just for schools be opened to the public? If so, what would need to be done to allow that to happen? Does the bill cover that, or could it be done now?

The Convener

David Summers is on the spot with a non-constituency question from the deputy convener.

Gail Ross

It is Highland-wide.

David Summers

That is fine. Such routes can be opened up at the moment; in fact, we have in the past two or three years increased the number of school routes that are open to the public. However, the public service vehicle accessibility requirements have worked against that. A 50-seater coach might be required for the number of school pupils, but coaches that do not have a wheelchair lift do not conform to the accessibility requirements, so they have had to be removed from the public network. The alternative is to provide two buses, which would cost more, but it is fair to say that services have been removed only where public use was minimal.

Current legislation allows councils to run school buses. We have no large buses on the public network, but we have a few minibuses. Legislation also allows us to use such vehicles off-peak to provide a public service, although that is pretty restricted, because the core use of such vehicles is for school transport. We welcome the provision in the bill to broaden the approach. One issue is that any such operation should be under an operator licence—I think that that is the bill’s intention, but it is not stated.

Mr Rumbles asked about loss-making services. The proposed power is to run services that the private sector has not registered. Such services might be loss making for private operators but not necessarily for us. In Moray, the private sector operator recently withdrew a route but, by using a school bus in off-peak time, the council replaced the service at what I understand is more or less break-even. The consideration is not whether the service is loss making but whether any commercial operator is providing it.

The Convener

Richard Lyle wants to drill down into a few questions.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Bruce Kiloh has touched on several questions that I was going to ask, so I will wrap up my questions to be a wee bit simpler. I will set the scene: in Scotland, we spend millions of pounds on bus transport. My area has numerous bus operators that really do not provide a service in some parts and are letting my constituents down.

When the Scottish Government officials, who I believe could be bolder, gave evidence to the committee last week, they said that state-aid competition rules might prevent local authority bus companies from providing a commercial service. Come back, Glasgow Corporation, all is forgiven. Should we not try to reintroduce a public bus service that serves the public? Does the bill fail in that regard?

Bruce Kiloh

Thank you for your questions. To put the situation in perspective, an interesting point is that the number of passengers in the west of Scotland bus market has gone down by 60 million in the past 10 years; the market faces a lot of difficulties. I mentioned that our area has 50 to 60 operators but, five or six years ago, that figure was 120. Some operators have been bought, but others have gone out of business.

We are proud of what we do at SPT in providing a public service and subsidising those services that are deemed socially necessary, but I suppose a wider question is whether you should be relying on a piece of legislation to turn round a bus market that is in decline. Possibly not. Will the bill make the world a better place as far as buses in the west of Scotland go? I hope so—probably.

The proposals for bus service improvement partnerships are better than the previous statutory bus quality partnerships. There are questions around the franchise proposal, but it is better than the bus quality contracts. One thing for sure is that, whatever state this legislation comes out in, we will explore every opportunity to maximise the benefits of the new legislation for the people of the west of Scotland. However, it always comes back to the elephant in the room, which is funding.

We spoke earlier about our £11 million budget for supporting socially necessary services. As a rule, that works out at about £5 per head per person for a year for our area. If you go down south, you might be looking at £25 a head for some of the bigger regions and £15 a head for some of the others. For London, it is about £100 a head. Those are rough figures. You get what you pay for. Whatever is proposed in the bill, if there is money there to back it up, it will make life a bit easier. Definitely, whatever form negotiations with the operators for a bus service improvement partnership might take, the operators always sit up and take notice if you bring a bit of money to the table.

Richard Lyle

Correct me if I am wrong, but I could set up a bus service tomorrow if I got all the necessary licences and so on. We have a crazy situation in Motherwell where two buses follow each other on the same route because they are from different companies. We are paying out that money for nothing. Why do we not sit down and decide what we need and what we want and what will serve the passengers—my constituents? We are not doing that and the bill will not do anything to resolve that, or will it? Tell me.

The Convener

Charlie, do you want to answer that?

Charlie Hoskins

Yes, because it follows on from Bruce Kiloh’s point. Richard Lyle is absolutely right. I also live in that area and, as a passenger, I very much see that happening. There are a couple of areas in the bill where there is the opportunity to do what Richard Lyle mentioned. At the moment, we try to do that with operators through the registration process. When their registration comes in, we try to suggest to them that it is not a good registration because it is too aggressive against another operator and the buses should be spread. For example, if an operator is coming in on the clock, somebody else should not arrive five minutes later—it should be 15 minutes later to try to give a 15-minute service.

The bus service improvement partnerships are a good idea in that regard because the whole point is to sit down and plan the network. One of the things that we need to do that planning is the data. I apologise if that is the second time I have said it, but it is very important. The SPT and SCOTS submissions both make the point that we need to get to the heart of that data. It gives us the network to plan and then, from that, you would hope not to be setting up a partnership where you would experience that type of situation.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Good morning, gentlemen. Many of you will have community buses running in your areas. In a previous incarnation, this committee did an inquiry into community transport. What effect, if any, would the proposals in the bill have on community transport groups?

Bruce Kiloh

We view community transport as a key part of the transport mix nowadays. It is an essential part of our provision for the transport network in the west of Scotland. Earlier, we talked about some of the issues relating to those socially necessary services. Our funding can go only so far, so we rely on community transport to assist us in filling that gap. We put our money where our mouth is in that regard, and we support some fantastic community transport organisations around the west of Scotland. Initiatives such as the bus service improvement partnership are part of that mix. It would be folly for us to ignore that. We want to build on the success that we had with the west of Scotland community transport network, which was an attempt to set a standard for community transport in the west of Scotland. We are delighted that operators have signed up to that and are able to access funding for us.

We will work with the community transport organisations through the provisions of the bill as enacted, if it comes to that, and we will make the best of the situation that we have.

Maureen Watt

Would expanding that approach be seen as an alternative to local authorities setting up their own bus companies? Would Mr Summers like to comment on that, as there are community transport groups in the Highlands?

David Summers

Community transport provision is uncertain while Westminster is still reviewing the position on section 19 and section 22 permits, although the indications that we are getting suggest that it is back-pedalling a bit from its original restrictive interpretation.

Community transport is important in our area, as Bruce Kiloh said that it is in his. We support 25 groups, most of which are pretty small scale. I do not see the bill having much impact on them, as they do not operate under PSVO licences. If any groups wanted to expand to the level at which taking on such a licence was appropriate, the provisions in the bill that apply to partnerships and so on would apply to them just as they do to companies in the commercial sector, which could be positive.

Overall, the bill addresses a market that is different from that which is served by community transport, at least in our area—a complementary, not competing, one. Could community transport operators substitute for council operation? Under the present system, operation is restricted to what the permit provides for, but there is potential to explore that. I do not think that I can go further than that at the moment.

The Convener

Jim Grieve has not had a chance to speak yet, so I will let him in now.

Jim Grieve (South East of Scotland Transport Partnership)

I will speak in order to give a voice to the south-east of Scotland. The transport partnership in our area is interested in community transport, particularly for rural areas such as the Scottish Borders, where there are real issues with the number of bus services that are available to people. I am not sure of the extent to which the bill will assist in the development of that, but it is something that we want to get involved in. To refer again to the elephant in the room that Bruce Kiloh has referred to a number of times, if some funding were available for that, it would help us to make some progress with it.

Richard Lyle

I certainly agree with you, Mr Grieve.

Last week, Scottish Government officials indicated that the proposed local service franchise regime would remove the entry bar that has prevented any authority from pursuing a bus quality contract. Do you share that view? If so, how many local service franchises could we expect to see operating within the next few years?

Charlie Hoskins

That is an interesting question. The proposal is a new one. Our view is that the proposed regime would remove that bar, which, in effect, in the context of a quality contract, was about proving a negative—people had to prove that there was a market failure. However, in place of that, there are some really stiff challenges when it comes to setting up a franchise. I am sorry to go on about data for the third time, but there are issues around the data that is required in order to do that analysis. To give members a comparator, Transport for Greater Manchester is investing £11 million in the analysis—not the delivery—of a franchise. That is 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.

There are a lot of challenges in that, and we in SCOTS share the view on some of the checks with an independent panel and all of the work to get to a point that could quite easily not be reached, despite the transport authority believing that it is the right thing to do. There are some stiff challenges in that, and we are interested in seeing what the guidance looks like on the mechanics of how that is done. Although the regime might remove a bar, there are a few other big, chunky obstacles for us to overcome to get to that point.

That might mean that we explore certain areas for franchises in the future. A number of years ago, there was an area in Lanarkshire in which we did considerable analysis of a quality contract, but we could not quite get over the bar. We are probably looking at a place of that kind of size where there is unmet need, but it is difficult to get the data to underpin that.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Good morning, panel. I have a number of questions about smart and integrated ticketing. I think that we would all welcome the extension of that to include rail and ferry services. There are several proposals on that in the bill, many of which relate to powers to be given to ministers on technical standards, definitions and establishing an advisory board.

We have had a couple of representations from local authorities. East Dunbartonshire Council raised concerns that the proposals

“may generate a larger number of individual smart cards that cannot be used across a number of travel platforms”.

Stirling Council told us that it considers that the

“system would be much more useful and understandable for customers if it were compulsory for operators to join such schemes.”

What, if any, are the benefits of the proposals in the bill on smart ticketing?

The Convener

I note that Charlie Hoskins wants to come in. I am sure that other people have views on the issue, but we will start with him.

Charlie Hoskins

Thanks, convener. I apologise for dominating the conversation, but I have quite a lot of deep experience of integrated and smart ticketing.

There are two things to consider. Members might be aware of the ITSO technical standard. The technical platform to interoperate therefore exists. That is a United Kingdom-wide technical standard. We have had that in the subway for five years. We interoperate with ScotRail and a number of bus operators.

The difficulty is in striking commercial and operational agreements with operators. There are a couple of reasons for that. One reason is that, as soon as operators start to integrate products, they fear that their revenue is being diluted. If two operators share the revenue for one journey, they will potentially not get the full fare for that in their own little space. That operator perspective is well understood. We operate a zone card in the SPT area with a paper-based system. The technical platform is the place to start from.

There is another interesting thing, which we are currently trialling. Everybody talks about smart cards, but the vast majority of a generation have grown up using devices such as smartphones and smart watches. People want a frictionless system in which they buy a ticket, it is downloaded to their phone, and they use that to tap to go through the gate with a QR, or quick response, code. It would be wrong to start to legislate right now for that whole technology space; we need to let it grow.

How the bill is written is pretty good, because an advisory group for ministers in which all the operators come together to bring forward that approach is needed. That will allow the technology to develop into those spaces. With so many operators with different commercial views, the top-down approach would be pretty near impossible without full regulation.

John Finnie

In Parliament, we are currently going about with two security cards because we are changing systems. Is the situation sufficiently future proofed by having the advisory board? Technology changes rapidly, and we do not want to impose something only to find that there is another version the following week. It is inevitable that there will be another version the following week.

Charlie Hoskins

That is a good point. Transport Scotland officials have been really open and pretty good on that, and we have talked to them about our experience, as have a number of operators. That is why there would be an advisory board. Do not impose something yet, because quite a lot is going on in that whole space of devices. As long as we have our technical standard so that we have the security of the product on the card or the device, that is the core. Then, let the commercial operators come forward with the best medium, whether that is a card, a phone or a watch. That is all happening at the moment.

Scotland is leading the way in much of that in what we are doing in the ScotRail network and the subway network. We have customers who can tap the gates with their phone and use their phone to go through, which is incredible.

The Convener

I am going to bring in David Summers. I am sure that Stewart Stevenson will flash his cards in a minute.

John Finnie

I have a supplementary question that David Summers can answer at the same time. Were there any concerns about the proposal to allow the Scottish ministers to direct local authorities to establish smart ticketing?

David Summers

That is exactly the point that I wanted to make. I agree with everything that Charlie Hoskins has said, but I have two additional points to make.

First, Transport Scotland has been very positive in helping to broaden the availability of smart-enabled ticket machines. The machines for smaller operators in our area have been upgraded. That all helps.

Secondly, there is a provision in the bill to allow ministers to instruct local authorities to introduce a smart ticketing scheme, but there is no power to allow local authorities to instruct operators to participate, so the ministerial instruction gets stuck halfway. That needs to be addressed. Charlie Hoskins outlined the commercial concerns about whether operators are going to lose revenue through that. However, if the instruction is going to be effective, it needs to be followed through.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

One of the concerns is that we may end up with local authorities using payment systems that operate across multiple modes of transport, so there may be differentiation when people travel from one local authority area or region to another, and different operators will use different technologies, because they are trying to increase patronage of their own mode of transport. That is all fine. There will also be national schemes laid on top of that. Does that not create a fragmented and quite confusing payment landscape? Contactless is a standard that can operate across all modes, but all that does is enable payment through the use of technology; it is not necessarily a standardised payment platform for ticketing.

There is an opportunity for the Government to create a nationwide standard. The Netherlands introduced the OV-chipkaart, and other countries have introduced similar schemes. The Government could introduce national technology standards and ensure that all operators are part of those schemes. Does the bill go far enough in taking away that confusion and in creating a national scheme that works across multiple travel modes?

The Convener

Charlie Hoskins is always keen to come in, but I am scanning the room to see whether anyone else wants to chip in.

Charlie Hoskins

I am keen to answer because that is a very pertinent question. It is clear that the other countries that use such systems have fully regulated whole-transport systems. When we start to impose things such as a single payment mechanism, we get into setting fare levels and all the competition issues. It is quite tricky to unpick all of that.

Rather than the question being whether the system is fragmented, we ask whether it is easy for the customers. We try to focus on whether we are making it easier for customers for the normal types of journeys that they make. We will never cover every single journey that people make in Scotland.

A time will come when there is another phase of technology. Members will have heard of the mobility-as-a-service concept and having a space where a transport planning system is aggregated with a payment system. That might be supplied by a big technology provider with operators feeding into that. That is a really interesting concept, and I know that the Scottish Government has put some money towards that for the year ahead, which is great to see. Some work is being done on that, and ideas are still emerging. We think that it would be wrong to start to impose that at this moment in time. When we start another chapter, that might be the right time to do it.

The Convener

I will let Stewart Stevenson ask his question before I bring in Bruce Kiloh.

Stewart Stevenson

First, are you planning on having a smart card to improve security? I have two cards here. Suppose that I found them in the street and that I have just downloaded the XML data off both cards. I now know the birthday and full name of the individual who holds the cards, notwithstanding the fact that that is not printed on the outside of the cards. In other words, there is no security whatsoever to prevent me from accessing the data on the ITSO cards. ITSO cards are currently 4K and 16K, so the other question is whether there is enough space on the cards to support the number of applications that might be required. Those are two quite techie questions.

The Convener

I will let Bruce Kiloh answer those questions and the previous question at the same time.

Bruce Kiloh

I am grateful for that, convener.

The Convener

I thought that you would be.

Bruce Kiloh

Charlie Hoskins will be able to talk about the technical stuff.

Over the past few years, we have developed a card for the west of Scotland, and it is important to remember that people used to ask us, “Why has it taken you so long to get a smart card up and running for the subway, which has only 15 stations?” As Charlie Hoskins outlined, the technical aspects were not the problem; the issue was getting the business rules right. Rightly or wrongly—I am making no judgment on this whatsoever—there are 50 bus operators, a rail company, ferry companies, the SPT and various other companies. That is the market in which we are operating.

Over the past five years, we have tried to get the operators on board, and we have been very successful with that. We now have the most commercially successful transport smart card in Scotland, with more than 170,000 cards issued and more than £20 million-worth of transactions.

On Stewart Stevenson’s point, the security of the data is key to maintaining the trust of the customer. Anything that can be done in that regard through the proposed advisory board in the bill is essential.

On the point that David Summers made, as far as we are aware, the way in which the advisory board will work with the smart cards is that the minister, when they have a particular view or are looking for advice, will seek counsel from the advisory board. It will not be a case of directing a local authority, an RTP or whoever it might be to bring in a scheme or an arrangement; it will be a case of directing that organisation towards the legislation that is available to it. That is very different from directing an authority to do something.

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 includes provision for setting up a ticketing arrangement or scheme—an arrangement involves the operators getting together and introducing a ticketing system, and a scheme involves a public authority bringing in such a system in the absence of an arrangement. That provision is available now, and I think that it will be maintained in the bill through the powers of the advisory board.

Paul Lawrence

I support what my colleagues have said.

I want to mention the tourist point of view, because we have talked about residents, constituents and customers. Tourism is a huge industry in the country, but tourists do not necessarily have the same access that residents do. Therefore, the point about people being able to simply use contactless payment, in the way that we could if we were to go to London tomorrow, is important for certain parts of the economy. The committee might want to think about the issue from the point of view of residents and of different economic interests.

The Convener

That is very helpful. Thank you for that.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

Good morning, gentlemen. A big part of the bill concerns low-emission zones. My first question is fundamental for all the members of the committee, and it needs a yes or no answer. Do you support the principle of establishing LEZs in Scotland?

Gordon Mackay

Yes—provided that they are fully funded.

Charlie Hoskins

Absolutely, and I agree with my colleague on his point.

Jim Grieve

Yes—provided that all the carrots do not go into one council area and all the sticks go into an adjacent council area.

Bruce Kiloh

Yes—provided that we think about not only emissions from vehicles, but the complementary measures that councils, RTPs and other partners deliver that relate to traffic management and bus priorities. There is also the issue of funding, as Gordon Mackay said.

Paul Lawrence

Yes—as long as LEZs are part of a wider approach to place making in an area, and not purely about transportation and emissions issues.

David Summers

Yes, definitely. I agree that reduced emissions can be achieved in various ways, bus priority being one of them. Buses should be seen as part of the solution, not as part of the problem.

The Convener

So the answer is yes.

Peter Chapman

That is very positive. I am pleased to hear it. I note that you have said that funding is an issue. That was going to be the subject of my next question, but you have already answered it.

The bill gives local authorities the ability to devise schemes that are appropriate to their circumstances. The problem with that is that there may be different schemes in different areas, resulting in confusion for travellers. Do the proposals in the bill strike the right balance between consistency across Scotland and the ability of local authorities to design a scheme that is suitable for themselves? 

Gordon Mackay

Yes, SCOTS is content with the proposals. One size does not fit all. We are content with the flexibility that is provided to local authorities to find appropriate solutions to local issues.

Jim Grieve

To illustrate what I said earlier about carrots and sticks, if a city introduces a scheme, and it is within its control, the carrots are cleaner air, less congestion, more reliable bus trips and funding coming in to the authority to improve those things. Commuters from neighbouring authorities, however, who travel into the city, particularly in single-occupancy cars, will have to look for alternative means of getting to the city, be it an upgraded car, better bus services or active travel. It is important that the wider regional perspective is taken into account, so that the benefits of a low-emission zone are equitable.

The Convener

Is there a view from the Highlands on that point?

David Summers

Yes. We are in a different position from the urban authorities in not having council boundaries close to the conurbation. We have an air quality management area in the centre of Inverness, so it is an issue for us. The bill requires the objectives of a low-emission zone to be set out. It is good that those are to go beyond reducing emissions. I mentioned bus priority, and the issues of traffic reduction and modal shift are also important.

As others have said, funding is clearly an issue. In Highland, we have traditionally put money into supporting rural bus services where they would not be economical. We have not put money into bus services to encourage people out of their cars in the more populated areas. That might be a beneficial side-effect of the bill, subject to funding.

Peter Chapman

The panel members have all said that they welcome the ability to have different schemes, but no one has addressed the issue of confusion among the general public. Someone might have a vehicle that it is legal to drive into Edinburgh but not into Glasgow. I can see that creating big problems for drivers, at least in the initial phases. Do you accept that view?

Jim Grieve

The vehicles that are allowed into a low-emission zone should be agreed nationally. That would avoid the issue that Mr Chapman has described, where a driver can access one city with a certain vehicle but not another.

Gordon Mackay

From a SCOTS perspective, what is proposed is reasonable. It is important that the rules of a particular low-emission zone are clearly explained via signage.

John Finnie

I have a question for David Summers. He talked about an air quality management zone in Inverness. It may seem parochial, but the point has wider application.

Is there a feeling in those areas that are not likely to be involved in initial schemes that the bill provides some comfort that the local authority will not act on issues? Someone who has been affected by air quality, and we know that bad air quality is a significant killer, will not be bothered about legislation. If a local authority has not taken steps to protect its citizens, they will legitimately sue.

Do you have concerns about that, particularly in relation to Inverness, where the local authority positively encouraged people to drive in the city centre in the air quality management zone?

David Summers

That is a nice question that puts me on the spot.

John Finnie

I have written to the council about the issue extensively.

David Summers

I have to admit that I have not seen that communication—perhaps it has not gone in the passenger transport direction.

This links in with the bus partnerships. We are talking about addressing air quality through partnership arrangements, relating to bus priority arrangements or vehicle types. Given that we have a number of electric buses in Inverness, I was dubious about the modelling of vehicle pollution that was done, because it was based on average bus fleets and did not take account of the electric vehicles that Stagecoach runs with us. If we look at this in the round and take in other aspects of the bill, there is an opportunity to approach the whole thing in a more strategic way.

I will have to pass on your direct question about liability if a scheme is not introduced.

John Finnie

Okay. Thank you very much.

The Convener

Peter Chapman has a follow-up question.

Peter Chapman

I want to drill down into this a bit more. Much of the detail relating to LEZs is to be set out in regulations that are currently being developed by the Scottish Government—we asked the Government some questions about that last week. What input have you guys had with regard to getting the detail of what an LEZ looks like into the bill?

Bruce Kiloh

We had a meeting last week with the relevant civil servants from Transport Scotland about how a low-emission zone would work in practice. I reiterated to them the point that I made earlier in support of LEZs: a key factor, which Glasgow City Council acknowledged in a report that it had done, is that complementary measures are essential and it is important to take a holistic, integrated view. We understand that there will be wider implications across the network and the transport offer for the travelling public. We need to approach that in a co-ordinated way. We will look at bus priority measures, traffic management and the public transport offer that is out there to encourage the public to travel more sustainably.

The civil servants listened well to me; they are more than aware that they will have to deal with all that carefully and in the round. From what we have seen, we are reassured that the guidance and the regulations will be hugely important as the bill goes through. The key point for us is that when the ancillary measures that are part of an LEZ are introduced, there has to be some way, within the LEZ documentation, of ensuring that there is a commitment from partners to deliver them.

Gordon Mackay

I will expand on what Bruce Kiloh said. The Glasgow LEZ is the first to progress, and I am aware that our colleagues in Glasgow have been working closely with Transport Scotland officials to flesh out the detail of it. The experience of that is now beginning to flow through into the legislation. I assure you that there is good dialogue on these topics.

Paul Lawrence

We have not had as much dialogue with Transport Scotland officials as we might have liked—that is perhaps as much our fault as it is theirs. It sounds like the dialogue in the east is not as advanced as it is in the west. On Jim Grieve’s point about designing holistic solutions for areas as a whole—effectively for travel-to-work areas rather than just specific parts of Edinburgh city centre—we need to understand the knock-on effects.

People are right to talk about complementary measures, but we need to work with, for example, the commercial haulage sector not only on its standards but on access and egress arrangements, and some kind of detail on the powers that we have to bring such operators to the table needs to be included in regulations.

The Convener

I suspect that you might be having more discussions after this.

Jamie Greene will ask the next question.

Jamie Greene

I just want to make some pragmatic points. I lived in London when the congestion charge was introduced, and my experience was that it led to a huge displacement of congestion. Drivers would park on the periphery of zones instead of driving into them; small businesses would use small diesel vans outside the zones; and bus operators would move all of their green vehicles into the zones to avoid fines, charges and so on. Is there a worry that very localised zones in cities might cause problems for residents and businesses outside the zones?

Secondly, what about those who are unable to use public transport or take active travel measures to commute into and out of cities? The reality is that many people rely on the car as a mode of transport. Will they see this measure simply as another tax on the motorist?

Jim Grieve

That emphasises the need to look at this holistically, as Paul Lawrence has said. There will be displacement, and a fair bit of work needs to be done on modelling and anticipating that. In Edinburgh, for example, it will put more stress on the Edinburgh city bypass, which is already under significant stress. My answer to the first part of your question, therefore, is that it is absolutely a worry, and it needs to be predicted and addressed prior to the introduction of an LEZ.

From my reading of the legislation, there is an opportunity to exempt certain types of vehicles, mainly emergency vehicles and others of that nature. I think that your point about people who have no choice but to use their own transport is a valid one, and it is an issue that still needs to be addressed in the legislation.

Gordon Mackay

I broadly echo Jim Grieve’s comments. I am certainly aware of concerns expressed by at least two councils about the potential for more polluting public transport vehicles such as buses to find their way into surrounding areas as a result of the Glasgow LEZ while, as Jamie Greene has suggested, the greener vehicles go into the zone. We need to be mindful of that issue.

Paul Lawrence

I used to work in greater Manchester, and a congestion charge ballot that was held there was lost for precisely the reasons that Mr Greene has set out, with suburban authorities fearing exactly the displacement that he referred to.

I tried to say this before, but my substantive point is that LEZs need to be part of a wider transport and place-making solution. Many people will always rely on their car, but the way in which we design networks can help in that respect. For example, people could take their cars to certain places and then transfer easily to other modes of transport—I am thinking of park-and-ride and park-and-walk schemes and so on. We need to think about the design of the whole network instead of purely looking at it from an emissions point of view, because through that kind of transport design work, we can combat a number of the issues that you have raised.

Charlie Hoskins

Paul Lawrence has covered the issue very well, but I would like to raise a couple of points.

We have had quite a number of discussions with Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland about the potential for displacement, and the committee might find it interesting to hear from the operators on the issue. Certainly one of the big operators in Glasgow faces a big challenge with regard to the investment required in its fleet.

One interesting learning point from the introduction of the first low-emissions zone in Glasgow is the feeling that the focus has been entirely on buses and that it was not presented in a holistic way at the beginning. We are over that now, and it is now understood as being a longer-term solution. I echo Paul Lawrence’s important point about having a regional assessment, and the work that SCOTS and SPT are doing across authorities to get an understanding of the issue has led not just to complementary measures in, say, Glasgow city centre with regard to bus speeds but to further investment in building strategic park-and-ride sites and in marketing such solutions as being really good for people. You have certainly made some very valid points.

Jamie Greene

Those were very constructive answers. Thank you.

Your answers and the discussion have been focused around the need for more modelling of displacement as well as more consultation in local authorities. Everyone is saying that the bill needs to be part of a holistic approach to the transportation needs of a city and of people who commute into and out of cities. That is all well and good; the problem is that the bill introduces LEZs and nothing else. The committee is faced with the dichotomy of proceeding with the well-intentioned LEZs while not addressing any of the other issues that you have talked about today. How can we progress with the introduction of the LEZs, for which there is wide support, in a way that ensures that everything is done before LEZs are introduced? Should there be a delay in their introduction? Should the timescale for that be longer? Should the grace periods be longer? How should we approach that issue?

The Convener

The grace period is an important aspect.

Charlie Hoskins

We all agree that the grace period is important, and I understand the concern about the need to look at it narrowly and introduce it in a bill. In the west of Scotland, the matter gets properly analysed in the regional transport strategy. SPT has just started the next regional transport strategy, so, over the next two years, it will learn from Glasgow and whatever comes through the bill will flow through into regional assessments.

It is incumbent on us, as the regional transport partnership—I say this with my SPT hat on—and all 12 authorities to come together to understand LEZs and other parts of the bill as well as, on a practical level, how the bill’s provisions will be implemented at the strategic level and how they will be assessed. The west of Scotland RTP—I am sure that the other RTPs will echo this—believes that the regional transport strategy is the place where the provisions will be strategically assessed and that LEZs will not be left sitting on their own.

Jim Grieve

I repeat pretty much what Charlie Hoskins has said. All seven RTPs are charged with providing a regional transport strategy and introducing it thereafter, funds permitting. There is already a statutory basis for consideration of things such as LEZs in the regional transport strategy, and that is one option.

The Convener

We will move on to the next questions, which will be asked by John Mason.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Mike Rumbles and I will both ask questions about parking, but I will focus more on cars and residential areas while Mike Rumbles might talk more about deliveries, unloading and the commercial side of things.

Do you support in principle the prohibition of pavement parking? In my constituency—I am sure there are others like it—we have some narrow roads where the pavements are reasonably wide. The police would say that the most sensible thing would be to park with two wheels on the pavement and two wheels on the road, which would mean not blocking the pavement or the road. Will the bill lead to lots of wide pavements being open and lots of roads being blocked, or will it lead to the displacement of vehicles? Do you agree with all of that, or is it too draconian?

Gordon Mackay

In principle, we need tools to deal with the real problem of pavements being obstructed. However, we have fairly significant concerns about where we sit. We are having on-going dialogue with Transport Scotland about the parking standards that will underpin the legislation, and those standards will provide the detail of when councils can exempt sections of road or pavement and when they cannot exempt them.

You are correct in saying that we have many areas of high-density housing, many of which have narrow roads and footpaths that are already under significant parking pressure. Further work needs to be done to better understand how all of that will feed through. Although we support the principle of finding a solution to the problem, we need to be clear that the potential solutions and their implementation are practical. From a local authority point of view, we need to see the rules for the parking standards. That is essential if we are to answer the sort of questions that you will ask us.

Considerable effort will be required to assess whether roads across council areas meet the exemption criteria. Considerable resource will then potentially be required for some type of ordering process. Apparently, it will not be a traffic regulation order—TRO—process, but must be something similar, which has 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 partly on the pavement and partly on the carriageway. There is also the question of enforcement. Some councils do not have decriminalised parking, and some councils that have it do not have evening enforcement although evenings will generally be the issue in residential areas.

Therefore, although SCOTS supports in principle having tools to deal with the very real current issues, our view is that significant further work needs to be done if we are to fully understand the practicalities of implementation.

Jim Grieve

I again emphasise the need to look at the issue holistically. For example, the pavement issue might be addressed as part of an LEZ, in which we might anticipate fewer single-occupancy cars coming into the city. That might provide a means to extend a controlled parking zone and therefore reduce the number of cars that come in looking to park. We should look at the situation holistically.

Paul Lawrence

I support Gordon Mackay’s points. In answering the previous question, we all said, “Yes, but—”. On this one, I would say, “Up to a point.” We welcome the intention, but the range of exemptions is worrying and may lead to unintended consequences. The basics of the law are that people should not drive on the pavement, but the bill appears to provide some kind of legal basis for driving on the pavement, which we do not support.

As Gordon Mackay suggested, the enforcement dimension seems to put the burden of proof on local authorities, which in many circumstances will find it hard to prove that there is illegal parking and, therefore, hard to issue parking charge notices accordingly.

I do not know whether the committee has had representations from Living Streets Scotland, but it is giving us a pretty torrid time in relation to what it believes the implications of the exemptions will be for pedestrians across the country.

The intention is good but the devil is in the detail, and that is far from satisfactory.

David Summers

Like others on the panel, we support the proposals. Our qualifications are about the resources that are required for enforcement and—to answer Mr Mason’s question—the unintended consequences that could arise. In our area, it is more typical to have narrow roads and narrow pavements than to have narrow roads and broad pavements. That can apply in villages and suburban housing schemes that were not designed for present levels of car ownership. There are areas where buses already have difficulty in getting through their routes because of parked cars, and there is a risk that that difficulty could increase. Of course, the same applies to emergency vehicles.

My traffic colleague is clear that, under traffic law, we have a responsibility to keep roads clear and unobstructed; therefore, banning pavement parking might mean people having to park somewhere else altogether. I can see difficulties coming from people who will not be able to park outside their houses because of the measure.

Those are practical consequences, but that is not to deny the benefits of keeping pavements clear for those who find obstructed pavements an obstacle, for reasons that the committee will know.

John Mason

There are a lot of issues, but I will try to keep my questions narrow and will ask about two points that have been raised. First, you said that more detail will come later. Are you involved in that process? Are you being consulted or feeding into that process, or is it purely the Government that is producing that detail?

Secondly, resources have been mentioned as a problem for councils. Will the penalty charges cover the cost of enforcement? My feeling—I stand to be corrected—is that double yellow lines are more strictly enforced on busy town and city centre high streets than in outlying residential areas. My concern is that parking might be strictly controlled in town and city centres but less controlled in peripheral areas, where a blind person will still need to get down the pavement and so on.

Gordon Mackay

We have had a good dialogue with Transport Scotland. George Henry at Transport Scotland runs a group that seeks to engage with all the councils, and that group has developed the parking standards. However, as I said earlier, there is some way to go before we have a definitive set of rules on how we would implement exemptions.

The view in SCOTS is that the bill and the associated financial memorandum substantially underestimate the costs to local authorities, by which I mean the time required to assess roads, to process TROs—or whatever order process is required—to sign and line the exemptions that are required and then to enforce compliance. I do not think that the income from PCNs would go any significant way towards meeting those costs.

Jamie Greene

My questions carry on that theme—they are similar to my questions about LEZs. Do you think that the Government’s proposed blanket ban is the right approach? It is widely accepted that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, but would a blanket ban have inadvertent consequences? For example, would it require local authorities to apply for exemptions under national standards that are as yet unknown? That would create a huge amount of work for local authorities.

Would it be better to have a reverse scheme whereby councils could apply for a ban on streets that were problematic, rather than the other way round? Under the Government’s approach, the whole thing will be illegal and, if a council wants to opt out, it will need to apply for an opt-out for specific streets. Again, my worry is displacement and huge numbers of drivers being unable to park their cars. We cannot simply ban parking in places where it is possible at the moment. Where will all those vehicles go? There are often no other parking opportunities in suburban areas. I have absolutely no idea where all those cars will go, and I have yet to hear any suggestions about that.

Jim Grieve

Either way, there will be a huge amount of bureaucracy. I suspect that the view behind the bill is that it is probably easier to have a blanket ban and then exempt specific footpaths from it. There is no real answer. Which option would be better depends on the proportions.

Gordon Mackay

You make a valid point about displacement. Beyond displacement from a single street, there is the potential for a significant cumulative effect. Housing areas are often very similar in character, so if you displace from one street you are probably displacing out the way.

In answer to Jamie Greene’s question about what we are allowed to exempt and how we are allowed to exempt it, I suggest that the devil will be in the detail. Could an area where the parking has worked fine historically simply be exempted? That would be a lot easier and far more practical, but we have still got a bit to go to get to that position.

Paul Lawrence

Jamie Greene’s question goes back to the bill’s objectives. If we are 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, the bill will lead to a set of regulations. If we are trying to ensure that everybody can park on the street in Edinburgh, there will be a problem, because there are some extremely densely occupied parts of the city. I wonder whether we are conflating policy objectives in using a single instrument.

The Convener

We will move on to Mike Rumbles’s questions. I am sure that Bruce Kiloh will get a chance to make his points in response to those questions.

Mike Rumbles

My first question flows on from the previous discussion. I want to focus on one of the exemptions. We are all interested in having legislation that is effective and not ineffective. However, from my reading of the written evidence that we have received as well as the bill it strikes me that there is a problem. Section 47 says that the parking prohibitions do not apply where

“the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading and in any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes”.

In its written evidence to us, East Dunbartonshire Council said that, unless an enforcement officer

“remains at a parked vehicle for longer than 20 minutes and visualises the infringement taking place, the driver will be able to argue their case”

and say that they have not remained there for longer than 20 minutes. It goes on to say:

“This isn’t a reasonable expectation for an enforcement officer”.

My point is that, although the inclusion of such an exemption for businesses that want to load or unload is well intentioned, allowing that for a continuous period of 20 minutes means that that period will become not a maximum but the norm. How could such a restriction possibly be enforced? I would like to hear whether the panel think the same. Somebody else could park for 20 minutes, and then another person could do so. If, as Paul Lawrence says, our intention is to help vulnerable users to go about their business without their paths being blocked, not changing that provision would drive a coach and horses through the whole bill. I would like to know what the panel members think.

The Convener

Paul, you were nodding vigorously.

Paul Lawrence

I agree with that. Mike Rumbles has described, probably far more eloquently than I did in my introduction, the reservations that we have about the drafting of that part of the bill. The intention is good, but the exemptions are too wide ranging and, as Mr Rumbles has said, in some senses unenforceable. More work needs to be done on the detail of that part.

Bruce Kiloh

Many aspects of the bill might have unintended consequences. David Summers mentioned the potential impact on bus services—not just local services, but others such as our demand-responsive transport service MyBus, which has no set route but goes through communities. In some areas, its access to passengers, who might be aged over 80 and unable to use mainstream public transport, is pretty much reliant on people parking on the pavement. Sometimes, the only time that those people will get out of the house is when the MyBus service can pick them up.

My general point—the committee has heard the entire panel say the same—is that we need to look at the issue in an integrated way. We need to understand how, from social and equality points of view, such impacts affect groups such as those who use the MyBus service, which last year carried over 500,000 passengers.

The Convener

There seems to be a general nodding of heads.

Peter Chapman

On the parking issue, a very important element that is missing from the bill is the prevention of parking opposite dropped kerbs, which are vital for disabled people and users of buggies. I am prepared to be corrected, but I do not think that anything in the bill says that parking opposite dropped kerbs will be made illegal.

Bruce Kiloh

I agree.

The Convener

No one wants to speak on that subject, but our witnesses seem to agree.

Perhaps Mike Rumbles would like to follow up his question.

Mike Rumbles

Last week, I asked the bill team about the drafting of section 47, and specifically about the 20-minute period, which seemed to have been plucked from the air. There does not seem to be any evidential basis for giving the ability to unload for 20 minutes. If the Government does not remove the 20-minute period, I will probably lodge an amendment to do so. If section 47(6)(c) were simply to say:

“the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading”,

and we were to remove the 20-minute allowance, would that help the situation?

Gordon Mackay

From the point of view of enforcement, the 20-minute limit is not much different from the loading restrictions that we currently police, which are commonplace in town centres. A parking attendant must observe the vehicle and come back 11 or 12 minutes later before they can issue a PCN. That is quite a clunky mechanism, because it involves a period of lost time. I agree that extending the period to 20 minutes would make the process even more cumbersome.

However, I accept in principle that there is a need to provide exemptions of that type to allow people to go about their day-to-day business. I suspect that leaving things open ended would cloud matters even further, because individuals might argue that they were going about some business associated with loading and unloading, disappear into a property and stay for longer than 20 minutes. Regardless of whether 20 minutes is the right period, at least it is a clear cut-off point that would allow parking attendants to be completely clear about how long they would have to observe a vehicle before they could issue a PCN, which they would be able to do 21 or 22 minutes after first observing the vehicle.

Mike Rumbles

At the moment, loading and unloading from the road is permitted in such circumstances, but here we are talking about loading and unloading from the pavement. That is a significant difference because, for that period, anyone with mobility issues will probably be forced on to the road, if they can get down on to it. Do you accept that there is a difference?

Gordon Mackay

It is all about compromises. We are having to accommodate many different parts of society, including local businesses and local households and their aspirations to go about their daily business, so a number of compromises will be required. It is a question of finding a balance.

John Finnie

This is most likely a question for Paul Lawrence. If the exemption provisions are agreed to, they will apply retrospectively to existing streets. Do you have input to planning decisions to ensure that such issues are designed out? Mention has been made of Living Streets and its progressive approaches. I would hope that, with any new infrastructure—setting aside gap sites in town and city centres—the problem could be designed out. Is that the case?

Paul Lawrence

That would certainly be the intention. I had hoped to have the opportunity to say this later, but I will sneak it in now. Our ability to do that depends not just on the planning process but on the way in which the roads redetermination process works. We think that that process—which is not mentioned in the bill—could be much smoother. That is an important tool in the box.

Mr Rumbles is absolutely right to raise the issue—we are talking about parking on the pavement, not parking on the street. I have yet to hear a justification from a trader about why they need to park on a pavement. That is not clear. That is the nub of the issue. The secondary issue is the local flavour. In some places, there might be certain hours of the day when we say that it is not acceptable to park on the pavement for any time at all. People might make the case that they need to be able to park on the pavement for specified reasons. We might say, “That’s fine, but only within certain hours.” Leaving it open ended or saying that people can park on the pavement for 20 minutes at any time of the day is unacceptable. We need much more local variance.

Mr Finnie is right that such issues can be designed out in new developments, but some of the tools that we have for doing that are still slightly clunky.

The Convener

I will not ask you to say whether shifting a lorry forward by 1m after it has been parked on the pavement for 20 minutes constitutes reparking, because that might be too difficult a question to address, but it is one that I have raised previously.

Stewart Stevenson

I will take us on to the exciting subject of road works. Stirling Council has commented on the proposed repeal of section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, which would mean that all road works would have to be authorised under section 109 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The council is concerned about whether, under the new arrangements, there will be adequate consultation with bus operators in particular, so that they can take account of the effect of road works on bus punctuality and reliability.

I recognise that Stirling Council is not necessarily represented here.

Gordon Mackay

Roads authorities typically deal with such a situation by going through a road closure order process. That seeks to accommodate road works of any type. We will continue to do that before or after any new legislation.

Stewart Stevenson

I think that the point that Stirling Council makes—I am putting words in its mouth so I might get this wrong—is that, under the new arrangements, there would be no legal duty to consult bus operators in particular. Am I mistaken?

Gordon Mackay

The road closure process involves publishing a road closure notice, which is made available to the general public, local elected members and the bus operators, so they all get advance notice.

Stewart Stevenson

That is fine—it closes down that question, subject to any further information.

The bill will create duties about signage, fencing, lighting and the qualifications of site supervisors and operators. Are you content with what it says on that subject?

Gordon Mackay

Yes. We surveyed all 32 councils and got a response from two thirds of them. Only two were not yet doing what the bill will require and both recognised the need to move in that direction. Indeed, they are already doing so.

David Summers

On the comment from Stirling Council, the liaison between bus operations and road works is an issue for Highland Council and—as I know from colleagues in the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers—around the country. Much of the time, it works fairly well, but some utilities push the boundaries, let us say, and I would welcome a statutory requirement to consult the bus operators. That would be helpful.

Stewart Stevenson

To be clear, are you telling us that, when the boundaries are pushed, it is not in contravention of the statutory position but merely an unhelpful practice?

David Summers

I am being diplomatic with my words.

Stewart Stevenson

Well, it might be time to be undiplomatic if you want change.

David Summers

The Scottish road works commissioner has had concerns about a lack of notice being provided or works being claimed to be emergency when they are not genuinely emergency works. Therefore, the stronger enforcement powers for the commissioner that are in the bill are welcome.

Stewart Stevenson

Convener, as we are asking questions about the road works commissioner, it might be useful to ask that person.

The Convener

Yes.

The witnesses have indicated that there ought to be consultation on road closure orders with bus companies and other road users. Does the current system allow all businesses that will be affected by road closures to feed into the process before an order is published? So that there is no dubiety, I clarify that I am part of a farming business that is sometimes affected by road closures. Are all businesses given enough of a chance to comment before a road is closed?

Gordon Mackay

We have to be careful about the expectation that a consultation would raise. It depends on the nature of the works that are to be undertaken and whether they can be carried out safely with a road still open. Frequently, it is not possible to keep a road open and do certain works. I would be cautious about going through a consultation in that scenario, because it would lead to an expectation that the road closure might be avoidable.

When managing road works and dealing with individual utilities, roads authorities are obliged 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. However, there is an inherent weakness in that, which goes back to the point that David Summers commented on. Occasionally, we are left with the impression that works are taking longer than they might with a particular utility. However, utilities will frequently come back with a plausible technical explanation as to why they have to do this or that, which means that works do not appear to be progressing as quickly as the public and roads authorities might like. With matters of that sort, we are often in the hands of the technical experts in the electricity or gas companies—the people who know their networks best.

The Convener

That is the perfect point at which to bring in Maureen Watt.

Maureen Watt

Previous legislation gave councils the ability to appoint a person to co-ordinate utility companies when they are digging up the road, so that, if the gas company is in and the water company needs to do work in the same street, it can be done at the same time. Has that worked? Has there been a reduction in the number of times that specific roads have been dug up? Have you managed to get co-operation between the utilities and, increasingly, fibre-optic laying companies?

Gordon Mackay

It does not work as well as we would like. The number of times that utilities go in and share the same opening trench is limited, but there may be good reasons for that. The electricity companies will not want to lay cables beside gas mains for very good reasons.

The amount of road works in some areas is certainly a source of frustration to the travelling public; however, we need to be clear that roads are not just for getting people from A to B. Roads are very important conduits for critical public infrastructure, and power and gas companies and the like need to be given reasonable opportunities to access them to do whatever is necessary. It is the job of the roads authority to ensure as far as possible that that is done in a way that mitigates inconvenience to the travelling public. Typically, that will require that works are done at off-peak times or on Sundays.

Paul Lawrence

We broadly welcome what the bill suggests. There may be practice, which may be outside legislation or in guidance, by which we can encourage utilities to improve their communication in general. The convener asked whether there have been occasions in the city of Edinburgh when utility providers have not communicated effectively with businesses and residents, and the answer is yes.

The bill takes us in the right direction, but it is much more about day-to-day work with officials, elected members, community councils and so on to establish relationships that work effectively, which I am not sure can be done entirely through legislation. Maureen Watt is absolutely right about fibre providers. They are effectively competing with one another in Edinburgh at the moment. As the roads authority, we try to play a co-ordinating role in that, in the way that Gordon Mackay set out. 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.

Maureen Watt

The Scottish road works 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 Lawrence

We do.

Gordon Mackay

Yes—SCOTS does.

The Convener

No one is putting up their hand to say that they disagree, so I assume that that is a positive response. We will move on to the next question.

Gail Ross

There 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 that finance: it will require constituent councils to fund the balance of the RTPs’ 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; and it will extend provisions in the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 to cover RTPs, which would grant RTPs the power to borrow and lend money and to operate a loan fund. Do you support those proposals and do they go far enough?

Bruce Kiloh

We support them very much. Since regional transport partnerships were established, we have been lobbying the Scottish Government, and previously the Scottish Executive, because we believe that this was some form of blip in the legislative process. We want to be able to take a much longer and more holistic view of the transport network and how we deliver for that, and the proposals will open up flexibility that will put us on an equal footing with councils. We will benefit from being able to do that.

Charlie Hoskins

I echo that point. We have lobbied hard for this. Year after year, we have been in a difficult position. My finance colleagues tell me that, in relation to the many projects that we are involved in, we have had to implement huge workarounds. That flexibility will be hugely beneficial, including in relation to some of the stuff that we are already doing.

Mike Rumbles

I have a brief question on canals. They are not always at the top of the transport agenda, but I am well aware of their importance to local communities. In Edinburgh, for example, there is the Union canal, with its canal festivals, and Polwarth church has been provided with its own landing, through the British Waterways Board. However, canals can be shut all of a sudden. The bill mentions only a requirement to change the number of board members. Does it not give us an opportunity to place on the board a duty to keep the canals open and navigable?

The Convener

Who would like to answer that? You are all looking the other way, but somebody has to come in.

Paul Lawrence

I have to say that I did not come prepared to talk about that but, based on our experience with exactly the area that Mr Rumbles mentions, I would agree that the bill gives us that opportunity, and we sometimes have an issue with co-ordination. Such a duty would be welcome.

Gordon Mackay

A parallel can be drawn with authorities having a statutory duty to maintain road networks. If the board has responsibility for maintaining a canal network, it does not seem unreasonable that that is reflected in statute.

The Convener

That brings us to the end of our questions. I thank everyone for their attendance.

The Convener

Item 3 is our third evidence-taking session on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. We will take evidence from two panels. First, we will focus on the smart ticketing proposals in the bill, and secondly we will hear evidence on the proposals relating to bus services.

I welcome to the meeting George Mair, who is director for Scotland of the Confederation of Passenger Transport; Simon Hulme, who is the information technology director of CalMac Ferries Ltd; and Robert Samson, who is senior stakeholder manager at Transport Focus. I assume that you have all given evidence before—

Simon Hulme (CalMac Ferries Ltd)

I have not, convener.

The Convener

For your benefit, then, I point out that you should not worry about pushing the buttons on your microphone; someone will turn it on for you. Please look at me if you want to answer a particular question—I will try to get everyone in. Moreover, if you see me waving my pen frantically, that means that your time is almost up.

Richard Lyle will start the questioning.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Good morning, gentlemen. On smart ticketing, the get Glasgow moving campaign has argued that

“the Transport Bill must include powers so that Local Transport Authorities can enforce an affordable daily price cap across all public transport within the City Region.”

That notion might be commendable, but is there a need for a national technological standard for smart ticketing? If so, what benefits might that bring?

Simon Hulme

We at CalMac are very supportive of adopting standards and working with other industry bodies. Some forums of which we are a member have discussed smart ticketing, and we think that there is a huge benefit not just in looking at the matter unilaterally for our business as a ferry operator, but in being able to work in conjunction with the bus and rail companies, both of which we think are hugely advantageous to the Scottish islands and the Scottish economy. We are absolutely supportive of having a standard to work to, because that will help our software suppliers to work together and should, ultimately, give us a more streamlined and, potentially, more cost-effective solution.

Robert Samson (Transport Focus)

From the passenger perspective, in the medium term, a national technological standard would assist passengers by requiring them to have only one ticket for every mode of transport and every operator of bus, ferry, underground or rail services. A national technological standard or common framework would make it easier to introduce one integrated smart product for passengers instead of their having a multiplicity of tickets.

Richard Lyle

When I was in London a month or two ago, I got an Oyster card, and I used it on buses, trains, the underground and riverboats. I even used it on the Emirates Air Line cable car and on the Docklands light railway. It was Oyster card, Oyster card, Oyster card. Once it ran out, I was able to use my contactless card. If that system works in a city, why can it not work across a country?

George Mair (Confederation of Passenger Transport)

We are on the road to that. There is a standard in operation now—ITSO 2.1.4—and all the bus, coach, train and ferry operators have agreed to, and can, work on that platform.

Two years ago, we gave a commitment to the then Minister for Transport and the Islands to introduce a multi-operator, bus-to-bus service, initially in Scotland’s main urban areas. We have delivered that in Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen city and Glasgow and, in the east of Scotland, from Dundee to the Borders and to the west as far as Shotts. In those areas, you can get a ticket that will give you multiple bus journeys. That is the initial platform, and the plan is to spread that out geographically, to build it up and to work with ferry and rail partners on introducing a ticket that can be used across the different modes.

We felt that it was really important to not go in and build the roof because, if there were no supports for the roof, there would be a danger of collapse. We are building from the base up. The building blocks and the standards are there: we can push on now and work with colleagues to deliver integrated ticketing for Scotland. It is coming.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

It is interesting that Mr Mair talked about the industries doing certain things to develop the integrated ticket in geographical areas. In London, the Oyster card, which Transport for London introduced, covers every bus company and the whole city. Why have we not achieved in Scotland a single smart card that covers the whole country and all forms of transport? What is preventing that? Will the provisions in the bill deliver that, or will we still have the ad hoc growth of smart cards from the various companies?

George Mair

One of the things that we were asked to include in the smart ticket range that we have developed across Scotland—of which there has been significant take-up—was that each card, along with its own branding, would also carry the standard Saltire brand so that it could be recognised as a Scotland-wide card that, ultimately, people would be able to use on all the different public transport forms.

We are different to London. The Oyster card has been great, but it is dying and new technology is moving on. We have to keep up the pace and keep ahead of the game. There is an opportunity to have a Saltire card that will deliver the things that you are looking for with all the modes of transport.

Colin Smyth

With respect, we are not even close to the Oyster card in Scotland. You say that you have the technology to allow that to happen, but it is not happening. Why is that?

The number of Oyster cards is reducing because people are using their bank cards. However, we are not even at Oyster card level, never mind being able to use our bank cards to get around the country. If I jump on a bus in Dumfries and travel all the way to Aberdeen by bus, there is no chance of my being able to use my bank card and being charged competitively for the several bus journeys that I make, because there is no crossover between Dumfries and Galloway and other parts of Scotland.

Why are we not even at Oyster card level, never mind at the level of what will ultimately replace the Oyster card, which will probably be use of bank cards? What is stopping that happening?

George Mair

In discussions with Transport Scotland, we felt that we were at a crossroads. We had one technology and we were at a tipping point. It was a bit like VHS and Betamax, when Betamax died a death. We saw the success in other parts of the country in moving transport on to contactless payment. For us, that was the right decision and a sensible thing to do, rather than investing a lot of cash, time and effort in something that would die. It was more sensible to look at contactless and move on with that, because it offered so many options for the future. The current contactless system will change and develop in the years ahead.

The Convener

When we spoke to Transport for London last week, it said to us that the Oyster card will never die: on the basis that there will always be some people who do not have a bank card or cannot use one, Oyster cards will be used for the foreseeable future. I just want to float that.

Robert Samson

It has taken a long time even to get to where we are. I think that it was first mentioned in 2004 in “Scotland’s transport future” that the aim was that passengers would be able to get one ticket that could get them anywhere in Scotland. We are sitting here 14 years later and we still have not got there.

It is probably easier in London than in Scotland because of the regulatory set-up in London and the multiplicity of operators in Scotland, but we are getting there slowly. We now have smart locations, as George Mair mentioned, in urban areas. The hope is that the technological standard and the advisory group that the bill proposes will knit all that together. However, it goes back 14 years, so it has taken longer to deliver than passengers would have liked.

Colin Smyth

I come back to the point about whether the provisions in the bill will be sufficient to deliver what we are trying to achieve, which is a Scotland-wide smart card like the Oyster card, particularly for people who will never have a bank account—young people and children do not have bank accounts—and the ability for people to use their bank card to get around Scotland. At the moment, I cannot use my bank card on a bus in Dumfries and Galloway. Will the bill deliver that, as it stands, or do we need to change it to make sure that we do not have this conversation again in five years?

Robert Samson

The bill will deliver mechanisms through which all the operators can get round the table and work together with good will. It will not legislate for, or enforce anyone to develop, a national product—although from working with the industry and operators, I see good will to deliver that. Operators are doing it in some areas just now, but there is no provision in the bill to enforce delivery of a national smart technology.

Simon Hulme

I have two comments that are probably worth making. We see customers having choice in how they pay for their travel as fundamental. There is a lot of talk about smart ticketing and smart cards, which has been the model up until now, but use of contactless cards is an expanding market; 63 per cent of people in the UK have contactless cards and 24 to 35-year-olds are the most common users of those cards. We want to make sure that we reach out to those people. However, as Colin Smyth rightly pointed out, not everyone has contactless cards.

Also, in some areas where CalMac operates, connectivity is particularly challenging—for example, we have to be cognisant that at some small ports on the islands we might not be able to have major ticket machines, so we have to be flexible and allow people choice. Do we see that involving our working very closely with the bus companies? For sure, we do. Do we see bus-sail as a fundamental product that we want to offer? Yes—as we do rail-sail. We have some of that, but we want to do a lot more.

We need Transport Scotland to help us to move forward with our new booking and ticketing system, which has been under discussion for a number of years. That is the fundamental enabler that will allow CalMac’s ferry business to move forward and to work with the companies that we are talking about. We want to go into multimodal delivery and offer choice to the customer, and we are asking for help from Transport Scotland to allow us to move that technology forward.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I have two small questions, the first of which sets the context. Is it not the case that the Oyster card allows an understanding of the journey that a customer makes, end to end, to be decided not before it is started but after it is completed? The key point is that the customer does not have to plan ahead but can just make their journey and then the system will aggregate all the different bits of the journey and price it. Is that a correct understanding? I am getting nods.

The Convener

George Mair, did you nod your head?

George Mair

Yes.

Stewart Stevenson

They all nodded.

In the bill, there is provision for a national smart ticketing advisory board. However, to enable you to do what Oyster does—that is, look at all the components that made up a journey in order to be able to decide, at the end of it, what the journey was—you will need a kind of clearing house for the data from all the different operators, be they ferries or whatever. I see nothing in the bill that provides for the technical bit of gubbins—to use the technical term—that will enable us to come to a conclusion about what the journey was. Does that matter? Is it a significant omission, or will the national smart ticketing advisory board, by implication, lead to the technical aspect being provided? If that does not happen, I do not see how we will get to the Scottish “scallop card”, or whatever you care to call it.

George Mair

We were instrumental in working with Transport Scotland to put in place the operator smart steering group, on which colleagues participate from the ferries sector and ScotRail—it is easier to say that only the Edinburgh trams are not represented. For me, the solution is about expanding that group to include local authorities and the transport operator that is not currently there.

We have had discussions about the issue, and we recognise that phase 1 of the roll-out of contactless payment is about buying the products that are there now, which might be single fares, day tickets or, in some cases, weekly tickets. Phase 2 will involve thinking about how to replicate what is happening now in London and being discussed in other parts of England. That will be discussed in Scotland.

Phase 1 is about getting the contactless system in and working, and buying the products that are there now. However, we will also have to keep an eye on the future, to move on to phase 2 of contactless payment, which will allow the things that Stewart Stevenson mentioned to happen. For example, someone might have multiple journeys and there will be a cap on the price for a day’s travel. Such ideas are being discussed just now, and the expansion of the board would allow those ideas to be developed.

Stewart Stevenson

I am sorry—let me intrude, just to try to draw that to a conclusion quickly. We are looking at a bit of legislation. At the end of the day, the question is whether the bill will speed up the process of getting to that end point.

George Mair

Yes, I think that it will.

Stewart Stevenson

That is fine.

The Convener

Does anyone else want to say whether it will speed up that process?

Simon Hulme

I think that it will speed it up, but there is one aspect that we think is fundamental, which is why the advisory board is so important. We see ferries as being slightly different. In some respects, our model is almost more like an airline one. On a number of our routes that are pre-booked, customers have to make their choices in advance, and we need to know that they are coming. That is an advantage, because we can speed up customers’ experience when we know who is coming and how many people will be on our vessels. Our being part of the advisory board helps us to ensure that such dimensions are not forgotten. That is where integration really comes from. People should not assume that it is just about buses and trains; they should remember the idiosyncrasies of other modes of transport, which might have slightly different demands.

Stewart Stevenson

Do you have a regulatory requirement to know who is coming?

Simon Hulme

On certain routes, yes we do.

Richard Lyle

In London, it is all red buses. Last week, we found out that the services are run not by Transport for London but by various operators, who bid to run services, using the red bus brand.

In Lanarkshire, for example, we have several bus companies, and the problem is that I cannot go from one bus to another with the same ticket. How do we in Scotland get the same impressive system that London has? The one reason why we cannot do what George Mair wants to do is that we have various companies that do not want to work with—or even know about—one another. They think, “Well, if he buys a ticket aff that guy, I’m no gettin my cut.”

George Mair

There are areas in the bill that cover that. Initially, we would try to encourage people to participate, because there are commercial benefits from doing so. If we can get things right, it will encourage the making of additional journeys across the board. If increasing its rider numbers is not incentive enough for an operator, I would question why it is in business.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

The bill proposes that the Scottish ministers would require local authorities to establish their own smart ticketing schemes. However, I have listened to the evidence this morning and I have considered the submissions from local authorities, and it seems that local authorities are not keen. They say that it will take away their autonomy and give them an additional administrative burden. Do we want local authorities to produce their own smart ticketing schemes, or would it be better to have a Scotland-wide scheme?

Robert Samson

The majority of journeys are made within a local authority area, so there are benefits, but a number of journeys cross boundaries—it depends on where people live. Our evidence is that passengers want a simple, convenient, flexible ticketing system that allows one journey across all modes without an artificial boundary, such as the boundary between North Lanarkshire, where I live, and South Lanarkshire, so that they can go from Motherwell to Hamilton on one ticket. A one-ticket one-stop shop would be the best solution in the long term.

George Mair

There are powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 for some transport authorities to introduce such a system, but to my knowledge, that has never happened in Scotland, with the exception of Strathclyde partnership for transport. The difficulty in the past was that there was not the motivation or inventiveness to come up with the ticket that Robert Samson quite rightly says that transport users look for.

That is why, two years ago, we were frustrated and said, “We are going to push on to do something and deliver it.” It seems sensible to everybody to build up the system using the main urban areas and to expand into different modes. Simon Hulme was right to say that we get hung up on the plastic card; we have to offer the full range of technology. Glasgow has contactless, multi-operator smart ticketing and telephony, and less than 30 per cent of journeys there are cash, 8 per cent are off-bus and 56 per cent use one of the smart modes—that was as of last week. In Aberdeen, less than 26 per cent of journeys are cash, 8 per cent are off-bus—people go to the shop and buy the ticket—and 66 per cent use some form of smart technology. It works, but we have to provide choice. I think that we could expect local authorities to deliver that range of choice.

Gail Ross

If not local authorities, who would do so?

George Mair

We need to work collectively and involve local authorities and the new board that is proposed—it is important to get local authorities’ views. Everybody needs to be part of agreeing the nuances that will be needed between the different transport modes. The best approach is collective agreement; we will get there, as we are demonstrating.

Simon Hulme

I am probably not best placed to comment on bus schemes. Ferries operate through a contract with Transport Scotland that puts obligations on us to work towards smart ticketing. I have already referred to our system needs. We see Transport Scotland as an enabler, which helps us to get traction, and we think that it is a good model to have ferry companies working not in isolation but with rail and others. That is where we see Transport Scotland providing some help to us.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

My problem is that I do not share Mr Mair’s optimism. The bill could have done a number of things. I think that three areas need to work together to ensure a national standard. On a technical level, it is clear that standardisation is needed in the back end of all this, so that we can have models that use multiple operators and multiple types of purchasing. We then need the regulatory environment to allow data sharing in that regard.

What is missing is the third area—the commercial agreements. The idea that operators will just work things out among themselves is all well and good, but we proposed that 14 years ago and we have made no progress. By default, because of the nature of the system in Scotland, there will be disagreement between operators on the revenue share from multijourney tickets.

Although contactless technology is welcome and convenient, does it address the problem of disaggregated ticketing? Does it offer real value for money if people still have to pay for individual journeys, albeit using a more convenient method?

George Mair

At the front end, the technology platform is there. We have different back offices. Transport Scotland’s back office hosts the national concessionary travel scheme and some commercial arrangements for smaller operators across Scotland. The technology is not the issue; joining it up is not that difficult.

People are using the different formats. We would like there to be a wider geographical spread and we would like to be further along the line in having partners who can join us in widening the modal option, but we will get there. In England, the Department for Transport spent around £180 million on consultancy work in an effort to build the roof—an overarching ticket that would do everything in England—and it failed miserably. It wasted £180 million. We are trying to build a structure that will support the roof—the overarching ticket that Jamie Greene aspires to have—but we started the process only two years ago.

Jamie Greene

Whose job is it to ensure that the roof gets built? You said that the industry is laying the foundations by establishing common standards and common back offices, but if the Government does not make it mandatory for the operators to work together on integration and there is not a regulatory environment in which that must happen, who is to say that the roof will ever be built? What benefit is there for the operators?

George Mair

The Minister for Transport and the Islands and the First Minister provided encouragement, and we hope that that enthusiasm and commitment will flow through to the new Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. I am sure that it will; we have had early discussions with him. The industries are up for it. We will deliver it. I have no beef with that; it will happen—it is happening. The process will expand modally and geographically, and there will be a phased progression of the proposition for the customer. That will have to happen, because our customers are saying, “We love it—can we have more, please?” We would be silly to ignore that.

I would like to correct one thing that Mr Greene said. We are talking about proper businesses. It is not a case of operators agreeing in a smoke-filled room how they will carve up the price. We do not get to do that nowadays—that is past history, thankfully. The process is run sensibly, on a business-case basis. There are directors who run the companies. If the process were not run sensibly, I would have nothing to do with it.

The Convener

We heard from Transport for London that the thing that people least look forward to of a morning is buying a ticket, so the easier that is for them, the more likely they are to get on public transport.

You said that we will have a national smart ticketing system, but when will we have one? Can you give us a date? I was taken by what Robert Samson said earlier. This has been talked about for a while. Do you have a date in mind by which people will be able to use their smartphones, their bank cards or their travel cards throughout Scotland? It would be nice to know that.

George Mair

I wish that I could give you a date. I am not going to tell you lies, because that would not do me or our industry any good.

The figures that I gave the committee were for one operator, in two parts of Scotland. These things are rolling out as we speak. I would like to think that, if we come back here in two years’ time, a great deal of progress will have been made. There are franchise issues that need to be resolved. In some respects, I am waiting for the Scottish Government to resolve those issues and then we can push on.

The Convener

I am not going to hold my breath.

George Mair

I am not going to make a silly projection. I hope that there will be real progress in the next two years.

Jamie Greene

I hope so, too, but I am pessimistic.

Robert Samson

The national smart ticketing advisory board is supposed to advise the Scottish ministers, but perhaps the way round the issue would be for the Scottish ministers to advise the advisory board to build me a roof.

Jamie Greene

What are the panel’s views on modal shift? We talk a lot in the committee about encouraging people out of their cars and on to public transport and the benefits of that for the environment and the commercial operators. However, the problem is the current disparity across Scotland. It is great that good work is happening in Glasgow and Aberdeen—good work is more likely to happen in cities—but, as Colin Smyth said, it is not happening in our rural areas.

As Richard Lyle said, the fact that operators do not talk to each other, tickets cannot be used across different operators—even in the same mode—and people cannot buy a ticket for the tram that can be used on a connecting rail service, even though a station was built to allow people to switch between the tram and rail, makes the whole thing seems ludicrous.

How can we expect people to get out of their cars and on to public transport when we have such an antiquated, complex price structure with no standards that apply across the country? Will the bill address the issue or is it completely missing a trick?

Simon Hulme

We hear from islander customers and in representations from businesses and MSPs from the islands that many of the challenges in relation to tourism result from the fact that vehicle traffic on our ferries is expanding, which can be a problem because it can make it difficult for islanders to go about their business.

On modal shift, if we can encourage leisure travellers and tourists not to take their cars to the islands and enable them to use the local bus services, that would bring huge benefits. It would benefit first the bus services, secondly the leisure travellers, because they would have a choice, and thirdly the islanders, because it would free up capacity on the ferries to move their freight and thereby meet their business needs.

As much as anything, we would want to provide information to our customers to let them know that they can take the train from Glasgow to Oban, go from Oban out to the islands and then use the bus service once they get there—and we would want to give them that information while they are there. Going beyond a smart card, we envisage a mobile and app-enabled system that not only sells tickets for all the different modes but provides timetabling and logistics information. That is what a truly integrated solution would start to look like.

However, we can do that only if we are all working to the same ground rules and using the same standards and technological approaches; that is why we think that there is good mileage in it. As I said earlier, CalMac has some way to go in terms of our technology, but that is the direction in which we want to go; that is our vision. There would be massive wins for business, the environment, leisure travellers and the islanders, so it is something that we should strive for.

Richard Lyle

If there was the right kind of integration, it would save people money, because they would not need to pay separately to go on the bus, train and boat. In London, people pay a maximum charge for the day—it does not matter where they go. I am not sure whether the zones are still part of that. When my family and I were down in London, I did not feel that it was expensive to go on the journeys that we went on. However, if I have to catch a bus and a train to go to Mallaig, it costs me megabucks. Would a smart ticket sort that out?

Robert Samson

Passengers expect smart technology to be cost effective. They expect to pay a reduced charge and make a saving. The cost saving for the transport user is one of the main attractors that can get more people to use smart technology. Cost is at the forefront of passengers’ minds when they are thinking about the benefits of using smart technology, so a cost saving must be part of the system.

Simon Hulme

I cannot comment on whether smart ticketing would result in cheaper fares, because ferry fares are pretty much set by Transport Scotland. However, it can provide a cheaper travel option, because a person will know that, rather than having the expense of taking the car, they can travel as a foot passenger, which is considerably cheaper. That is where the benefit comes from—we are helping people to take the less expensive option; we are offering a flexible option, which makes travel cheaper for them.

The Convener

At the meeting with Transport for London, which Richard Lyle was at, it was made clear that a reason why people are happy to use smart ticketing is that they can use an app to see what is available and they can plan their journey from home. Is such an approach important, as part of the smart ticketing solution? Is it important that people are able to plan exactly how they will get from A to B before they have washed up their coffee cups?

George Mair

It is hugely important. A criticism that a previous minister made of the industry was that it was extremely difficult to find out what fare people have to pay on the bus. We took that on board as best we could. We harnessed the Traveline Scotland website. Now, if someone is planning a journey between two points, the website can provide information on the standard fare, and if they hover over the standard fare, information is offered on the range of available discounted tickets.

We are working with Transport Scotland and Traveline Scotland on the next phase, so that once someone has identified the journey and the fare, they will be able to click on the fare and load it on to their ticket. Progress is being made on that. It was hugely important that we changed the way in which we provided information.

On the point about multi-operator ticketing discounts, let me use an example from the east of Scotland. If a person is using two different bus services they can now buy one ticket and get a discount of between 30 and 50 per cent on their journey. Tickets in the east are integrated with rail, so there are options for rail journeys, too. The benefits will come—trust me.

Jamie Greene

It is interesting that I can leave this committee room and use my mobile phone to buy a ticket from Waverley to London, so I can buy my ticket before getting to the station, but if I want to go to Glasgow I have to go to the station, stand in a queue at the ticket machine and buy a ticket—

Stewart Stevenson

Nonsense—

Jamie Greene

Is mobile ticketing being used to its full potential, given that the majority of people have access to a smartphone? Will it be offered on an operator-by-operator basis? Improvements are welcome, but will we have an integrated or centralised mobile ticketing system, given what George Mair just said?

George Mair

We will get to that. Initially, there will be individual products, which will build up that structure. We can then start to do the smarter things, such as integrating different modes and ticketing options.

Everyone here uses smart technology, which offers opportunities that we did not understand in the past. The new ticket machines that operators are putting in have the facility to do a multitude of things. The technology is not the issue; it is about getting round the table to agree what needs to be done and then pushing on.

The Convener

I will bring in Simon Hulme and Robert Samson very briefly and then move on to the next question.

Simon Hulme

We think that people being able to book over their morning coffee is a benefit. I referred to our bookable routes—15 of our busiest routes, on which capacity is heavily constrained. People want to be confident that they can book a ticket and know that they can get on a vessel. That is why I said that the ferry industry is slightly different from the bus industry; we have a certain capacity and we have to manage how many bookings we take for each sailing.

The integration between the mobile solution that Jamie Greene mentioned and our live booking system is fundamental to us. We see mobile ticketing as a great benefit. People might want to know whether they can sail tomorrow on a particular ferry; we can say “Yes, you can—and you can book it right now”, and they can book it with confidence.

Robert Samson

Smart integrated ticketing goes hand in glove with smart integrated information for passengers. There are some wonderful apps out there. I do not know whether you saw Citymapper when you were down in London, but it is an absolutely wonderful app that can tell you things such as which carriage of a train to get on to be closest to the station exit—all that information is on one app. If Citymapper can go hand in hand with integrated ticketing, a Scotland-wide app could do the same thing with the same functionality. There are solutions out there; we just have to deliver them.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I think that we are going over the same ground from different angles, but let me have my shot as well. I have a saltire card, which is national although it is issued by Glasgow City Council and has the council’s mark on it, along with that of the subway. That system has been going for a few years—I used the card when I was in Orkney with the committee—so why do we not have something similar when people pay for transport? Is it the payment element that makes it so difficult?

George Mair

Your card is on the same platform as the smart cards that are distributed to thousands of people across Scotland. The technology for a card is there now. Transport Scotland statistics show that the vast majority of journeys are local, but if you wanted a day trip to Dundee and if we had the technology lined up with a rail company, you could load your rail ticket on that card.

John Mason

So that has worked in a top-down way. Why on earth are we not doing the smart ticketing top down?

George Mair

Because the steering group that was set up reached the view that the best approach was to build up from the bottom, capitalising on the volume of local journeys in the main urban areas, and then expand geographically and modally. That work is on-going.

John Mason

And yet we have had evidence from Fife, South Lanarkshire and North Ayrshire that they all have major reservations about the local, building-up approach. It appears that they would prefer a top-down approach.

George Mair

Well, they have had since 2001 to have a chat about that, and they are now late.

John Mason

Okay.

The Convener

Robert, do you have anything to say about that?

Robert Samson

From the passenger perspective, whether we are talking about building from the top down or from the bottom up, the house is getting built. What we need now is the will to deliver from the transport industry and the levers of government.

John Mason

Was the transport industry enthusiastic about this card, which came from the top down?

Robert Samson

Some operators were, and I imagine that some were not because of commercial concerns.

John Mason

If we wait for everybody to agree, we could be waiting a very long time, could we not?

George Mair

But that is only one mode, remember.

John Mason

This card gives me a discount on the train and the subway.

George Mair

Is it the concession card?

John Mason

Yes.

The Convener

I notice that everyone is reaching into their pockets to pull out a plethora of cards, and it might be difficult for the official report staff to see all the different types of card. I do not think that anyone was pulling out money—just travel cards.

I will take a brief question from Stewart Stevenson and then I will move on to Peter Chapman.

Stewart Stevenson

My colleague and I have worked out offline that one of the problems is that, although we have a standard—ITSO—for senior citizens’ rail travel, the ScotRail app works only on Android phones and does not work on Apple ones, and we have discovered that that is a bit of a problem.

The Convener

I can tell you absolutely that not all the routes on ScotRail are smart ticketed. If you start at Keith in the morning, you have to go and get your ticket from the machine.

Stewart Stevenson

I have bought a Keith ticket on my mobile.

The Convener

I would say that there are huge problems, but let us move on to Peter Chapman.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

We have all been speaking about the increasing use of new technology for electronic payments, contactless payments and all that stuff, and that is grand, but we must recognise that not everyone has access to that technology, as has been mentioned. Mostly, but not exclusively, it is probably elderly folk and the very young who cannot access it. How do we ensure that, as we move forward with new technology, those passengers are not left behind? What are we going to give them in future?

Robert Samson

We sometimes get carried away in talking about mobility as a service and about various technological advances, but a lot of consumers out there still want to use cash and still want to talk to someone for reassurance at a booking office, so that must be part of the mix in any ticketing solution. It cannot all be smart enabled. There must be room for passengers who want to pay by traditional methods, who want reassurance from the company and who want a paper-based ticket. Smart ticketing is a solution for many people, but not for everyone, so that must be in the mix for any transport bill and any policy or advisory board going forward. Not everyone wants to use smart technology, and we must remember that not everyone can afford it.

The Convener

What is CalMac’s view on cash?

Simon Hulme

We still see cash as a valid form of payment, which we see no reason to move away from. As I referenced earlier, we operate in some challenging environments, and in some areas we have no staff, no buildings and only very simple slipways. It is the staff on our vessels to whom we are giving the capability to take cash or to use contactless, and we want to give as much choice as we can to our customers. I mentioned the tourism market earlier, and many people who come to Scotland do not know what a Scottish smart card is. They expect to pay cash, and that is fine. Why would we say no to that?

Everything that we see suggests that our systems work. We have ticket offices in many of our ports, where staff provide huge value and comfort to our customers, and they offer those choices as to how they want to pay. That is something that we intend to continue to offer.

The Convener

What about cash on buses?

George Mair

I have already said that cash needs to remain. There are opportunities for systems that allow children, instead of carrying cash, to keep something in their school bag that speaks to the ticket machine, and that can work seamlessly. There are lots of options, but cash needs to remain.

Peter Chapman

Is there any way that somebody paying cash could bundle up a number of journeys with one cash payment, or is that something that none of you could envision happening?

Robert Samson

It happens now with carnet tickets and flexipasses, whereby you can pay with cash for 15 journeys and get 20 journeys. There are products out there that benefit cash users as well, and there are some savings if you buy a flexible pass. It is a higher cash payment than a single ticket, but there are still benefits for people who use cash.

Simon Hulme

We offer that service, so you can already buy a combined rail and ferry ticket.

Peter Chapman

Is that the case?

Simon Hulme

Yes, although not on many routes—we see an opportunity there. That service is already available on a limited number of routes, and passengers can pay however they wish.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

With contactless or an Oyster card, one of the problems is in having confidence that you are getting the best fare possible. There is a multitude of fares on any mode of transport, which I often think are designed to confuse. You even get quoted different prices for the same journey on different platforms—I do not mean rail platforms, but whatever app or website you are trying to book on.

Transport for London can absolutely guarantee that you are getting the best possible fare, but is there a way of streamlining fares here to make them more open and transparent? There could still be an off-peak fare—I see the point of that—but I do not think that people are confident that they are being guaranteed the best possible fare.

There is also the issue of the system of concessionary cards, where you can have a ScotRail concessionary card, a bus concessionary card and so on. Not even that has been streamlined.

The Convener

I am going to let George Mair answer that, but to anyone else who wants to come in, I should say that we still have two questions left to ask, so it would be good if we had short answers.

George Mair

Technology of the kind that you have mentioned in London will inevitably come to Scotland through, if nothing else, the contactless system, which allows the technology to drive the maximum fare that you will pay if you make X journeys in a day. That will come here.

Robert Samson

Users want security with their smart technology—they want to know that their personal data, their contactless information such as their bank account details and so on are secure. The system must also be transparent in order to attract people to smart technology; they need to see the value for money that they are getting, how it is better and more convenient than paper-based tickets, the savings that they are making and so on. Those are included in the seven recommendations that we have made to the committee in our written evidence on what users need to attract them to smart technology.

Gail Ross

We are talking at a really high level about what users want and need, and we have mentioned the proposed advisory board, local authorities and so on. However, what consultation has taken place, is taking place or should take place with actual service users on what they themselves want?

Robert Samson

You can check this on our website, but over the past four or five years, we have produced 10 to 15 reports on what passengers want from smart technology with regard to bus, rail and tram services. They have seven key criteria: value for money; convenience; simplicity; security; and having something that is flexible, tailored and leading edge. Our approach is based on evidence from system users on what they want from smart technology.

Gail Ross

Has that work been undertaken Scotland-wide?

Robert Samson

It has included Scotland in a Great Britain-wide approach.

George Mair

Our organisation and the operators that are part of our membership have used Transport Focus’s reports to find out customers’ views on a range of issues. In addition, Bus Users Scotland holds surgeries in different parts of Scotland at which bus operators and Bus Users representatives meet the general public who use bus services. There are a number of forums in different parts of Scotland in which customers can tell bus operators and local authorities what the issues are and what things need to be improved. If you do not listen to what they have to say, you will suffer.

The Convener

I have a quick final question. It appears that everyone is in favour of getting smart ticketing out there as quickly as possible. What one change would you make to the bill to ensure that that happens sooner rather than later?

George Mair

Money is always helpful, although, so far, things have happened more quickly and have been less costly to the Scottish Government than had been expected. Over the next few years, we will keep working to deliver things as quickly as we can.

Simon Hulme

We are very supportive of the bill as it stands. However, what we in CalMac think is needed to drive things forward is, as I have said, for Transport Scotland to step up and help us to move forward with our new ticketing platform. That will be our big enabler—that is what will bring the ferry industry into this forum, which is something that we are massively keen on.

Robert Samson

Looking at the bill as it stands, I think that the remit of the advisory board should be to deliver on the proposal in the 2004 white paper “Scotland’s transport future” for one ticket that will get you anywhere you want to go.

The Convener

With that simple answer, I think it an appropriate time to thank you all for your evidence this morning.

I suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a witness changeover.

The Convener

I welcome to the meeting our second panel of witnesses on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. We will take evidence on the proposals for bus services from George Mair, director for Scotland, Confederation of Passenger Transport, who has stayed in his seat; Gavin Booth, director for Scotland, Bus Users Scotland; Emma Cooper, chief executive, Scottish Rural Action; Chris Day, policy adviser, Transform Scotland; and Professor David Gray, professor of transport policy, Robert Gordon University. Thank you all for attending this morning.

The first question is from John Finnie.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Good morning, panel. As has been widely acknowledged, there has been a dramatic decline in bus patronage. I know that Mr Mair will be familiar with what I am about to say, because the research in question was commissioned by his organisation, but that decline is largely linked to increased car ownership, longer journey times—two factors that, in my view, are inextricably linked—and fare increases exceeding the rate of increase in motoring costs. We have a lot of evidence on this aspect of the bill, and it has been referred to as a missed opportunity. Do the bus-related proposals in the bill tackle the underlying causes of the long-term decline in bus patronage?

The Convener

I should say to the witnesses that the secret is to catch my eye, and I will definitely bring you in. If no one looks at me, I will pick the one who looks least willing to answer.

Professor David Gray (Robert Gordon University)

The short answer is no. The fundamental issues facing the bus industry go back, in urban areas, to the mid-1980s, when regional councils were abolished. In rural areas, they go back to at least the early 1960s. There are, of course, fundamental structural issues in rural areas.

With regard to the fundamental problems being traced back to the abolition of regional councils, we now have too many small local authorities competing for housing, retail and jobs, and their areas quite often overlap sensible journey-to-work areas. The long-term social change that has resulted is people living further away from where they work, take part in recreation, socialise and so on, and that is driving down bus use. The bill tackles the symptoms, but the underlying disease probably needs to be tackled through planning and changes in local authorities.

Chris Day (Transform Scotland)

I think that we used the phrase “missed opportunity” in our written evidence, and I certainly endorse the sentiment. Our concern is that the bill does not address the underlying issues that John Finnie has touched on.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the picture is very patchy. There has been a general long-term decline, but the graphs in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which are replicated in our evidence, show that it appears to have levelled off slightly Scotland-wide. That said, bus patronage is not as high as an organisation like ours that is committed to sustainable transport would aspire to.

As for the patchiness, the SPICe evidence shows that the decline is different in different parts of Scotland. It is perhaps less pronounced in Inverness and south-east Scotland, for example, than it is in Glasgow and the old Strathclyde area, where it appears to be particularly pronounced. I do not want to suggest that that is a reason for complacency in other parts of Scotland, but we need to look at how we increase bus patronage. As has been said, the issues in urban areas are congestion and parking, whereas in rural areas—I am sure that Emma Cooper will have something to say about this—the issues are quite different; it will probably be necessary to look at alternative ways of delivering a bus service that meets people’s aspirations instead of having a 47-seat vehicle trundle along a country road once every second day. There are differences in different parts of Scotland.

The Convener

As Chris Day has introduced you to the discussion, Emma, I will bring you in now.

Emma Cooper (Scottish Rural Action)

Unfortunately, we do not think that the bill will tackle the underlying cause of the decline in bus services. That will require a significant increase in service provision in rural areas, a reduction in journey times, more seamless journeys, much better and more effective connections between different modes of transport, and fare reductions. We need to look at the whole transport picture in Scotland and think about how all those things go together. At the moment, the bill does not really tackle that sort of thing.

The Convener

I think that Richard Lyle wants to come in here.

Richard Lyle

I am sorry, Professor Gray, but as a councillor, I never liked Strathclyde Regional Council. I was a district councillor and then I became a councillor on North Lanarkshire Council, and I do not agree with the suggestion that what happened with regional councils was the cause of the decline in bus patronage.

Was deregulation not the cause? People cannot get a bus; they cannot find a bus. People are not going on buses because they are not regular and they do not come along when they want them to. That is why the bill must tackle that cause.

Professor Gray

I would not say that regional councils were perfect, but there was better co-ordination of economic development, housing, transport and retail than we have now. [Interruption.] Yes, there was. We have had about three decades of decentralisation, which has been primarily developer led in many areas, and transport services and planning have had to follow rather than lead in many cases.

Stewart Stevenson

I have a tiny point to make. Are buses unique in making it difficult for people to travel compared with other means of transport? I remember years ago getting on a bus without the right change, so the journey cost me more than it should have done. I had no idea what the fare was, and I just did not have the change. That kept me off the buses for 20 years, and I know plenty of other people who were the same. Should the bill ban exact-cash-only systems? Unfortunately, that issue is probably ultra vires of this Parliament.

The Convener

Gavin, do you want to comment on that, or anything that was said earlier?

Gavin Booth (Bus Users Scotland)

Yes. In a way, that point is tied up with what previous witnesses said about integrated fares, which could address some of the problems with exact-fare systems.

I take a slightly different view from the others. I have been around the industry for more than 50 years. I was around in the days before deregulation and the days since deregulation, and I worked in the industry at the time of deregulation. Over the past 30 years, since deregulation, I have seen the bus industry perform much better for the passenger. In the pre-deregulation days, the passenger was near the bottom of the heap. I worked for the Scottish Bus Group, which provided millions of journeys throughout Scotland every day. It was all about performance and production, rather than about the passenger or end user.

I look around with the benefit of that experience and I see bus companies that are commercially motivated and which understand the passenger much better than they used to. They understand that marketing can reach the passenger; they understand the market and that they can sell products in it. Of course it is not perfect, but I believe that we are much further on. I have seen the figures, and I know the reasons for them. I suspect that the bill cannot address some of the issues, such as home working and internet shopping, which have affected bus passenger numbers hugely. People are not travelling because they are working on electronic machines at home.

A lot of the issues could be addressed by the part of the bill on bus service improvement partnerships. I am a great believer in partnerships. Partnerships between local authorities and bus companies can achieve a great deal. Local authorities can provide the track. One problem, which Chris Day mentioned, is the marked difference in passenger loss across the country. It is fairly flat in many parts, but the reduction is fairly frightening in the west and south-west of Scotland. A lot of that is to do with access to the roads, parking, control and providing the track.

I have been at a Confederation of Passenger Transport conference for the past two days. The question of using roads such as the M8 into Glasgow was raised. Bus operators using the M8 are finding themselves held back by the sheer amount of traffic on the road. If buses were given a track or priority, they could get their passengers through much more quickly. That would persuade a lot of people to leave their cars—perhaps at park-and-ride sites—and travel into the city centre by bus. The bill can address some of the problems through encouraging partnerships between local authorities and bus companies.

George Mair

There are issues around operator involvement in planning housing schemes and various other things. The best example of that is probably the new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Glasgow, which was almost ready to open when someone said, “Hold on, we’ve got no buses coming to the front door!” Such things should not be allowed to happen.

One would hope that, if nothing else, the proposed bus service improvement partnerships will ensure that the dialogue with local authorities will not be restricted simply to the public transport element of the council, but would broaden out to involve people from planning so that we have a bigger picture, understand the developments and are in a position to be able to say, “If you put 500 hooses in that location, you ain’t gonnae get a bus service, because it’s nae big enough to support it.” That is a big part of the rural issue.

Mr Finnie mentioned the CPT report, which outlined a whole range of different things, some of which Gavin Booth touched on. I acknowledge that fares are in there, but so are quality improvements, which have generated more than 2 million additional journeys. However, 75 per cent of the patronage loss was due to things that operators have little or no control over. I hope that that element can be picked up through partnership working.

John Finnie

I am astonished by the hospital example that you have just given. When I was on a planning committee, the traffic impact assessment was a key element of any development and the hospital planners should have had regard to public transport. It is very disappointing that they did not. However, that is not a matter for the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

In the pecking order of the increase in car ownership and journey times—Mr Booth touched on it—it is true that people would sooner sit in a queue in their own vehicle than in someone else’s vehicle. Is the bill the vehicle—if you will excuse the pun—to progress some of the issues in relation to dedicated lanes, traffic priorities and triggering signals by the approach of a bus? I apologise that I do not understand the operational technicalities.

George Mair

That is one of the areas that we are concerned about. We endorse partnership working absolutely, but there is one thing that worries me a wee bit. I have worked in the industry for more years than I can count—40-plus years—and there is always that seed of doubt that although you are there trying to work in partnership, that will not happen and things will not happen. Even when we work in partnership, there are times when things do not happen.

It is something that might need to go in the bill. An operator signs up to operate buses, commits to delivering services and is regulated by the traffic commissioner for Scotland, Ms Aitken. If the operator fails in those areas, Ms Aitken will call them into a public inquiry and deal with them—quite severely at times. However, there is no balance.

To me, partnership means that you meet and discuss things, there is a meeting of minds, you come up with a plan and if either side commits to delivering something, they should get on and deliver it. If the operator fails to deliver, they can be pulled up in front of the commissioner and have their licence removed, but nobody is calling on the local authority to ask why it did not deliver that priority measure or better infrastructure or whatever. That needs to be thought through.

The biggest impact on bus journeys by far comes from congestion and car ownership. That is related to Government policy, because we have had no change in fuel duty for nine years now. Just think how many additional car journeys have been made on the back of that.

John Finnie

Again, that is not within the gift of the Parliament.

George Mair

I know, but you would expect me to take the chance to say such things.

John Finnie

Indeed.

A relative who knew that I would be here today told me about waiting 25 minutes for a bus that did not turn up. I am sure that you understand the frustration, but is it disproportionate? I do not use the bus a great deal—I use the train a lot—but my experience is quite positive, particularly in Edinburgh but also in Inverness. Bus companies say that if there is transport across towns and the towns are congested, they cannot commit themselves and that is where the frustration lies.

Chris Day

My comments might answer both of Mr Finnie’s questions.

An issue with the bill—and perhaps with the whole debate about the future of buses in Scotland—is that a lot of attention is focused on operators and not a lot of attention, if any, is focused on infrastructure. Let me use the analogy of rail: members will understand that half the rail business is the trains and the services that are provided and half of it is the stuff that the trains run on.

Over the past 15 years or so, councils and local transport authorities have done very little, for a number of reasons, to provide the infrastructure that operators need to run on. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the City of Edinburgh Council was held up as a gold standard, in that it made deliberate, clear-cut political decisions to promote bus use by devoting highway space to buses. Over the past five or 10 years, that approach has taken a bit of a back seat—perhaps things are coming full circle.

It is probably fair to say that, in recent years, very few councils have spent as much time and resource on infrastructure as we would like them to spend. In our written submission we included a graph in that regard—we are not saying that that is proof, but there is a clear correlation in Edinburgh between the expansion of bus lanes and bus priorities and the growth of patronage on Lothian Buses. Lothian Buses was losing passengers until the late 1990s, when we began to see bus lanes being extended in Edinburgh. That is when Lothian Buses began to see massive growth.

The infrastructure is a critical part of the picture, as well as the operations, and we need that issue to be addressed in the bill.

Maureen Watt

In the interests of openness and transparency, I should probably say that I have known George Mair since I was a regional councillor in the mid-1990s, around the time when he and Moir Lockhead were setting up First.

My question is kind of linked to that. As the panel knows, the bill seeks to amend the Transport Act 1985 to allow local authorities or companies formed by local authorities, or regional transport partnerships, to provide local bus services. Should a local authority or regional transport partnership-owned bus company be able to provide both commercial and supported services, or are the witnesses content with the limitations on the type of service that can be provided, as set out in the bill?

Professor Gray

I tend to look at this issue from a slightly different perspective, with my rural hat on. I would say that the key metric is pounds per passenger journey, and anything that can increase flexibility and enable local authorities to make services cost less is welcome.

Moray Council runs a dial-a-bus service, and I think that a bus service is operated by the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. There are small-scale examples of that happening where a council thinks, “We need to do something.” As I said, I welcome anything that increases flexibility and a council’s ability to reduce cost.

Maureen Watt

How do you envisage councils managing to reduce cost?

Professor Gray

By being able to do it a lot cheaper than tender prices. In a number of areas and a number of routes, a council will tender for a service that it will support. A bus company might not be bothered about tendering for a particular contract—its bread and butter probably comes from school services—so it might tender for the contract just to make a little extra money, going with a high tender in the knowledge that it is no skin off its nose if it does not get the contract. The tender costs will probably be too high in reality, and the council will be able to undercut them by running the service itself.

Gavin Booth

Picking up on what David Gray has said, I think that local authorities have to look after their own finances. However, if bus operators are bidding too high for supported services, local authorities should look to continue them, if they feel that they can do so. From the passenger point of view, the important thing is that services continue—the question of who finances them is probably of less importance. We are relaxed about that side of things, as long as, at the end of the day, there is a guaranteed service for our passengers.

Maureen Watt

Before other members of the panel come in, I just want to ask Professor Gray whether he has taken into account the presumably quite substantial start-up costs for local authorities or whoever when setting up a bus company.

Professor Gray

I am not saying that it is necessarily the first-choice option, but where councils are having to withdraw a number of services because, with the rise in tender costs, they cannot afford to provide them, I think that it should be explored as a sensible way forward that can reduce the cost to councils of providing services. Anything that increases flexibility and the ability to provide services at reasonable cost should be explored.

The Convener

The witnesses need to help me just a wee bit. Please catch my eye if you want to come in, because it saves me having to nominate someone.

George Mair

The bill tries to strike a reasonable balance. If the local authority feels that it is not getting the right range of offers from those tendering for services, it should be able to take things into its own hands. Some local authorities have had such powers for many years now, but they have never really used them.

That said, as other panel members have suggested, although it is probably quite simple to give such powers, delivering them on the ground will require us to think through the set-up cost, the cost of investing in the fleet and so on. I assume that if you go down that road, the local authority would have to provide a level playing field with regard to operator licensing, driver training, the driver certificate of professional competence and so on. It is easy to sit here and say, “Wouldn’t it be good if we just gave them the powers to do this?”, but we are talking about these services being delivered on the ground every day at a time when local authorities are struggling financially to the extent that in some areas, they have totally removed support for bus services and, in others, they are investing only a pittance of the budget that they get handed from the Scottish Government.

It is a huge risk to go down this path and say, “Let’s just turn the clock back, give them a licence and let them get on and deliver these services.” That might happen, but there is a big risk that it would not work.

Colin Smyth

The panel has made it clear that, at the moment, the bill will allow a local authority to run a bus service only under very restricted circumstances—in other words, to meet what is classed in the bill as “unmet need”. I do not know what that means, but as it stands, the bill will not allow a local authority to run a commercial or so-called non-commercial bus service either at arm’s length or as a local council service in competition with the private sector. Does the panel believe that such a restricted circumstance should be allowed to remain in the bill, or should we remove it and allow local authorities to set up bus companies? After all, local authorities are asking for the power to run any service that they wish.

Coming back to a point that Mr Mair made, I note that, two weeks ago, Gordon Mackay from the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland said in evidence to us that the number of local authorities that would set up bus companies on the basis of that restriction in the bill

“would be somewhere between nil and very low.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 19 September 2018; c 5.]

Frankly, why would you take the risk of running only services that make a loss? Should that restriction be lifted and councils allowed to run services across the board?

The Convener

Emma, do you want to respond to that from a rural perspective?

Emma Cooper

As the bill is drafted, it will not have a significant impact on services—it will not give us better bus services in rural areas or a greater number of them.

The other part of the question that Colin Smyth has laid out is much more difficult. We do not want to put small businesses out of business. That is not what anyone wants. However, buses are a lifeline, essential service: they get people to work and they get tourists around our country. Buses are vital and that service must be provided. If the current provision is not working for communities—it is not working in rural areas—then we have to look at alternative approaches. It would be interesting to see a more detailed study of the implications of the approach that Mr Smyth outlined.

Chris Day

Mr Smyth seemed to answer his own question as he went on. No one would dispute the point that if there is no commercial operator prepared to operate a service, local authorities should be given the powers to operate that service directly. That is fine.

I hazard a guess that many, if not most, councils already have transport departments—they run bin lorries, road maintenance and so on. They have the core organisation there that could be expanded, although there is a significant difference in scale. Under the current rules, several local authorities provide non-commercial services where no operator is prepared to tender.

More interesting is Mr Smyth’s question about whether local authorities should be able to operate commercial routes as well. We would leave that question open. It is interesting that the Scottish Government is considering allowing a public sector operator to bid for the ScotRail franchise along with private operators. Could that model be applied in the bus sector?

The critical issue is, if a council leader or chief executive is asked why their council does not provide commercial bus services in competition with a certain operator in an area that is failing, they will need to carefully consider the financial implications of providing those services. Bus wars are expensive to win and very expensive to lose.

Like Emma Cooper, I have doubts that many councils will want to venture into that area.

Professor Gray

I put my rural island hat on to make my final point. Community transport already runs bus services that are not in competition with commercial services on certain routes and in certain places. If it would help drive down costs, is there any reason why councils could not do the same on a small scale, given that there are economies on a microscale? There is no reason not to explore it. Anything that drives down costs for local authorities and the Government should be a good thing to be explored.

John Mason

We currently have bus quality partnerships and the proposal is to have bus service improvement partnerships. Can you define the difference? Is it a step in the right or the wrong direction?

The Convener

Gavin Booth is shaking his head.

Gavin Booth

As I said earlier, I am in favour of partnerships. I am not sure what the difference between the two would be. None of the quality partnerships that were proposed was taken up, so we are starting from a base where we have to think about how to make it easier for bus companies and local authorities to want to be part of a partnership.

I am a great believer in partnerships. I believe that passengers benefit from partnerships all round, particularly when the bus companies up their game to match any investment by the local authority in infrastructure, bus lanes and so on.

John Mason

Am I right in saying that we have had voluntary partnerships up till now, not statutory ones?

Gavin Booth

No.

George Mair

There are statutory partnerships.

The Convener

Everyone else has looked the other way when we have got to this question.

George Mair

The BSIP tries to simplify some of the barriers—real or perceived—in the previous legislation. Across Scotland we have had a number of voluntary partnerships. The longest surviving one is the one in the north-east of Scotland—the quality partnership for public transport for Aberdeen city and shire. It came into being in 1998 and, over the years, some good projects have been built into it. It has just been relaunched this year as the bus partnership alliance.

We have had statutory partnerships in the west of Scotland. The most recent one was the SPT statutory quality partnership for the fastlink corridor from Glasgow city centre to the new hospital. The operational requirements that are placed on the operators, such as the spec of the vehicle, in that partnership are probably some of the toughest for operators to meet anywhere in the country.

Partnerships can work. One of the previous barriers to partnership was concern on the part of local authorities about on-going funding. A local authority might be looking at a big project that needs cash over multiple years, but there might be no guarantee that it would get it. Generally, there has been some resistance to getting into work on a partnership—

John Mason

Do you see the improvement partnership as being better than the previous quality partnerships?

George Mair

It will simplify a number of areas in the previous legislation.

John Mason

The main difference is that it will simplify things. That is helpful.

Emma Cooper

You seem to be struggling with the same question that I am struggling with, which is, what difference will this actually make to people on the ground? It is hard to see what difference it will make at the moment.

The Convener

Various people are nodding.

John Mason

My next question is linked to that one. There could be a veto on an improvement partnership if a sufficient number of operators were opposed to it. Do you know what “sufficient” means in that context? Have you done any thinking around that? I assume that other operators would not want a monopoly for one operator to develop.

George Mair

It is about trying to strike a balance. There is a negotiation between one or more local authorities—more than one if the partnership is cross-boundary. You are trying to get to the point where there is a meeting of minds about the aspirations for the area and how the bus product can be improved across the board.

It is right that either the local authority can tell the operator that it does not think that it is getting enough or the operator can tell the council that it is asking too much and is not offering enough—it is a negotiation. Somewhere in that process, if we get to the point where the balance is not right and is tipping in one direction, either party should be able to say, “Hold on a minute—we are not quite there.”

One operator could not stop a partnership; it would need to be supported by the rest of the operators. They would need to say, “That’s going to impact us all. We are not seeing the benefit coming through that we anticipated from that kind of arrangement.” It is business; there have to be checks and balances.

John Mason

So do you think that the bill gets the balance right? Some of the councils feel that it gives too much power to the bus operator. My experience is that in the east end of Glasgow there is a real monopoly on buses; only one company is operating, so the partnership would have to involve the council or the Strathclyde partnership for transport and that bus operator, and if they did not agree, it would not happen.

George Mair

The partnerships that I have been involved with across Scotland are open to all operators. Some decide not to participate, but the invitation is there. In Aberdeen, small operators that come in from the outlying area have to be part of that partnership. The offer is there, but you cannae force people. If the partnership goes ahead and facilities are provided that operators support, either through financial contribution or through improvements to the fleet, those operators that do not participate in quality partnerships do not get the benefit.

Professor Gray

I have three hats on today, but I am answering this one with my Highlands and Islands transport partnership hat on. To go back to the previous point, the HITRANS perspective is that a lot of the bill’s provisions on matters such as extending parking charges are to be welcomed, but the absence of those things was not necessarily a factor in why some voluntary partnerships petered out. It was more about the squeeze on revenue and capital, which was due to austerity. Partnerships succeed only with revenue and capital funding available to deliver the local authority side of things on the ground. That is the key issue: the bill can change the provisions that are available to a local authority, but without the capital and revenue funding to deliver and sustain it, the partnerships will fail as well.

John Mason

Are you saying that there is not a big difference between what was there before and what is coming?

Professor Gray

Well, the differences are welcome from a transport authority side, in that they offer more flexibility and a wider range of elements to be brought in, but—as most things do in transport—it comes down to funding.

Stewart Stevenson

Let me start by declaring that I am honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, which relates to the subject under discussion. I had jotted that down in my notes but, as the convener might point out to me, I should have mentioned it earlier.

This, at 18 pages, is one of the meatiest parts of the bill and it essentially deletes the bit of the 2001 act that relates to partnership, which is more or less the same size. To be blunt, I have to say that, when we compare what is being taken away with what is being put in, it is quite difficult to work out what the difference is in effect rather than in terminology. I wonder whether you can help us understand the difference—or if you do not understand, just tell us so, as that will help us understand which questions to ask the Government when it comes along to account for its proposed changes.

The Convener

Before the witnesses answer, I should tell them that this is not a trick question. Stewart Stevenson will have forensically analysed the bill under a microscope, so they must be prepared to justify their answers. Who would like to go first?

George Mair

Can I come back to you on that one? I will not do it today, but I will come back to you. [Laughter.]

Stewart Stevenson

I will just observe that I have known George Mair for quite a while—although possibly not as long as Maureen Watt has—and if he cannot answer that question on what is a pretty fundamental part of the bill, we will have to look at it very intensively indeed, first to understand it and secondly to ensure either that we hear a good case for the proposals or that we are able to reject them altogether.

The Convener

George, you can definitely come back to us on this question.

George Mair

I will do so. It might be that I am getting older and more forgetful, but I would like to have the opportunity to sit down and study the matter.

If we are in confession mode, I should confess that I played only a small part—honestly—in helping Moir Lockhead build First. [Laughter.]

The Convener

Let us move swiftly on. David Gray, did you have something to say?

Professor Gray

I probably do not understand the differences fully, although it strikes me that one of the key ones is the requirement for a local authority to make a plan and then report on it every year, which, it seems to me, will add to the workload of hard-pressed public transport units. For me, then, the main difference is that the provisions in the bill will add to the workload of local authorities, which will have resource implications and might not be a smart move.

The Convener

No one else is jumping up and down to say that they recognised any differences. Do you have another question on that, Stewart?

Stewart Stevenson

I do not. I think that the panel’s silence is really the answer to the question and points to other questions for later on.

John Finnie

I will have another go at this. Earlier, the word “balance” was used. With regard to the local service franchises, Fife Council has said:

“the proposals are lengthy and prescriptive and will certainly be challenging for any local authority who attempts to implement a Franchise.”

There is a question about balance, and about the process of developing, auditing and, indeed, approving a franchise scheme. Do you think that the balance is right with regard to justifying an intervention in the bus market?

The Convener

I am looking at the panel. Chris Day, do you want to have a go?

Chris Day

With regard to the question, which is specifically about the franchising component of the bill, I think that it depends on the scale of the local area. If you were trying to franchise a bus network in, for example, Edinburgh or Glasgow, the staffing implications of establishing what you wanted to be in that network would be enormous—that is the financial reality of that plan. As we have said in our written evidence, it is important not to underestimate the loss of transport planning expertise across local authorities. Indeed, I would suggest that it is not there at present. That is not to say that you cannot recreate it, but doing so will come with significant financial cost. The simple answer to your question is that franchises potentially represent an enormous workload that I do not think local authorities are currently equipped to take on.

George Mair

It is easy to say, “If nothing else, let’s just go for a franchise,” but there are huge and complex issues in that. I am more than happy to pitch up in a room here and meet as many MSPs who want to chat as possible, because we need to understand the situation. We need to learn from the mistakes that happened in the north of England as a result of the franchise aspirations of Nexus. Because there were no checks and balances, Nexus got quite far through the exercise only to find, when it went to the final panel—the traffic commissioner-led one—that the business case was totally flawed. It had spent millions of pounds to get to that point.

Checks and balances are needed. There is room for dialogue around who ultimately makes the decision, but we need to make sure that, if the process is going to go ahead, it is robust and properly financed. The arrangement will be in place for five, six or seven years, and we need to be sure that it will last that long. After all, if you have done away with the bus companies in an area, what is going to happen?

Franchising is a nice word, but it has different meanings. The franchise that we are speaking about here means closing the market. Only bus operators that get a permit to run in the franchise area will be allowed to operate—there will be no others. If a council decides to bundle up its franchise package to include things such as schools contracts, what happens to the businesses that see the full range of routes being removed from them and put out to tender, which might mean that there is no job for them to do? In some areas, companies have been in operation for 70 years or longer—we have members that have been in operation for 90 years—and they might be killed off by a franchise because it might remove their contracts. There is a lot to think about, and you need to do that work when you get to the point where you might be shutting down businesses.

John Finnie

I am glad that others find this challenging, because I have had trouble getting my head around what the bill is trying to do.

I want to pick up on three points. First, I do not want to single out Fife Council, because we have had many responses to our call for evidence, but it has highlighted an issue that we have heard about in previous weeks, which is that the development of any franchising scheme would require a local authority to have access to the full bus patronage and revenue data for its area. Can you comment on that?

Secondly, do you feel that the independent panel that will be convened by the traffic commissioner will be robust enough? Mr Mair has touched on that already.

If I could ask one final question—

The Convener

Do not take all of Richard Lyle’s questions.

Richard Lyle

He has already taken one of them.

John Finnie

I was reading from the information above them. However, the witnesses can save their answers for Mr Lyle.

Richard Lyle

It is all right—I have another question.

John Finnie

The other issue that I want to ask about relates to a point raised by one of Mr Mair’s members. When I asked about a specific route, he said that it was not financially viable; however, he said that it could be made viable if it were possible to incorporate the school run, as that would provide some resilience at either end of the day. The contract for that school run has already been committed to for several years hence, and the fact that school contracts have already been committed to puts limitations on some people’s aspirations to provide more bus services.

I know that that is a very wide-ranging issue and that it has strayed into Mr Lyle’s question, for which I apologise.

George Mair

Gee, that is challenging. On your question about Fife Council—

John Finnie

Would your members share that data with a local authority?

George Mair

In that scenario, they would have no option but to share it. The Manchester transport authority is spending more than £11 million on an exercise to decide whether to go down the franchise path, never mind run buses. The operators involved have been so inundated with information requirements that they have been unable to respond and have had to go to the traffic commissioner and say, “We need some help here, because we can’t deal with this—we have a business to run.”

John Finnie

But you have told us about all the data that is available when it comes to smart ticketing and so on. I presume that you are already making projections on routes that might or might not be operated on the basis of the information that you have.

George Mair

Yes. That information would require to be handed over, and the operators would be happy to do that. However, the process could be expanded to cover things that they did not have information on, and they would have to say that they could not provide it, because they did not have it.

John Finnie

Even bus operators cannot provide something that they do not have. Were you aware of the position that we heard about whereby, for informed decisions to be made, all the data about patronage and revenue would have to be handed over?

George Mair

Yes. Today, in some part of Scotland, a local authority will be discussing a bus route, a service or a collection of services with an operator. That dialogue will take place as part of that relationship, and it is happening now. We provide data to a multitude of different sources—it is just part of life—but if we were in the franchise scenario, there are things that operators would be required to hand over. There is the temptation for that process to grow to cover areas that operators cannot provide data on, because it is not there.

The Convener

I am keen to bring in Richard Lyle and Jamie Greene, because that issue straddles their areas of questioning. It would also be useful to hear from Emma Cooper on how franchising might affect rural areas.

Richard Lyle

Earlier, I disagreed with Professor David Gray, and I apologise for that. Transport in the area that was covered by Strathclyde Regional Council is run by Strathclyde partnership for transport—SPT.

I was a councillor—very boringly—for 30-odd years, and I agree that councils should be running bus services. I have seen North Lanarkshire Council buses sitting in the yard after they have picked up the kids in the morning, and meanwhile people cannot get a bus from Benhar, Shotts or wherever. Why should councils not run buses in areas where operators do not want to go? That would let people leave villages where at present they are stuck, because they cannot get a bus. I agree with your comments and, as I have said, I apologise for my earlier disagreement.

The Convener

Who would like to respond to Richard Lyle?

George Mair

If there is a partnership in place with a local authority, whether the service is an urban or rural operation, there will be dialogue on different matters, so it is not beyond belief that such discussions could take place. For example, if a bus did a school run in the morning, it could go on to do a route at peak time, and then go back to the school and do the evening run for the kids who are going home. That happens now—some school services are linked in with the wider bus network. Some people do not like that, but it makes best use of the asset that is available to be used. Dialogue on that kind of thing should be happening on the ground between the operator and the local authority; if it is not, that is disappointing. If the new partnership scenario helps in that respect, that will be great.

The Convener

Emma, do you want to comment on franchising and on buses moving in and out of areas in rural scenarios?

Emma Cooper

It is quite difficult to get your head around the situation in a rural area. Journeys often cross local authority boundaries; for example, someone on one side of the boundary might need to go to the main population centre that is just on the other side. In looking at bus partnerships, we need to think about how we ensure that those journeys still happen and that they are taken into account. It is about not just what is happening in a certain area, but the bigger picture for people.

I also have questions about the impact of such a move on community transport operators. They are often able to provide a really important and vital service for very few people on the basis that they also provide services for slightly more people, which allows for some balance in their services. How would they fit in the picture? It would be good for the committee to hear from the Community Transport Association Scotland on that side of things.

Apart from that, I probably need to think about the issue a bit more. I would be happy to come back to the committee on the matter.

Professor Gray

In rural areas, franchises work only if regional transport partnerships have a more formalised and strategic role in that regard. There are so many cross-boundary routes. In Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen city, for example, the north east of Scotland transport partnership would need to have a fairly important role. The same is true for HITRANS and the Tayside and central Scotland transport partnership. If we go down the franchising route, we need to further empower RTPs.

The Convener

Does Jamie Greene have a question?

Jamie Greene

Good afternoon, panel—I am sorry that I am coming in at the end of the session. I have one technical question that links in with John Finnie’s questions on data sharing on specific routes, and I have a more general question to take advantage of the expertise on the panel.

One of the bill’s proposals means that, if an operator wants to significantly alter, vary or cancel a service, the local authority or the regional transport partnership will be able to request data—specifically revenue and patronage data—on the service. That data can then be supplied to a potential new operator of the service, who might pick up the route under a subsidised model. That is quite an important point, because we get a lot of correspondence on such matters. Does the panel have any views on that? Is it a good idea?

Gavin Booth

I think that it is a good idea. In that sort of situation, an incoming operator needs to have the opportunity to get off to a good start. If they have data available, they can analyse it, which will help them to design their networks and routes. The availability of that data makes a lot of sense if the incoming operator is to be able to provide a service for the travelling public.

George Mair

In a number of locations, operators are already sharing some of the data when a service is deregistered.

Jamie Greene

Under the proposals in the bill, operators would be required to submit 12 months’ worth of specific patronage and revenue data—number of passengers, number of journeys and what journeys were made. It is a specific set of data, which should allow the new operator to make an informed decision on whether they want to participate in a given route. That is the key difference with what happens at the moment.

My main question concerns the conversation that we had at the beginning of this panel session on getting people on to buses. Throughout this process of taking evidence and reading correspondence, I have noticed how centred and focused it has been on the franchise regimes that we operate, specifically for the asks on bus lanes and so on. Do you think that, as a country, we are not being visionary enough when it comes to the use of technology and infrastructure and how we spend our money?

Over the past 10 years, the Government has been building a great deal of concrete infrastructure, including the M8 and M74, the dualling of the A9, the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the Queensferry crossing. There is a lot more road space. However, nowhere have we seen any dedicated space for buses or bus-type technology. We could look at what is being done in Cambridge, for example, using guided buses and a new type of technology. Further afield, bus bridges are being built in China—you should google them, as they are impressive. Are we spending our money on infrastructure in the right way when it comes to future proofing our bus networks and improving modal shift?

The Convener

That is quite a wide-ranging question. I will allow each of you a very short answer.

Gavin Booth

The short answer is no, we are not, and yes, there should be much more money going into helping passengers get to where they want to go reliably, safely and quickly.

Emma Cooper

Future proofing any bill is a difficult job. However, some incredible advancements in transport technology are emerging. It is important that the bill examines those and considers how to ensure that that technology is used for the benefit of everybody living in Scotland, rather than purely adopting a commercial basis for development, in which case it will benefit urban areas much more than rural areas.

Chris Day

You will not be surprised to hear us say that we believe that more resource should be focused on the most efficient means of getting people about. I will not list those. There is an element here of what you have said about technology, although I add a note of caution. I was going to say that you should not believe everything that Elon Musk suggests. There are a few fanciful ideas about what technology can achieve. Sometimes it is a good idea to step back a bit and have a think.

Professor Gray

My answer is yes and no.

The Convener

That sounds like a good politician’s answer.

Professor Gray

Intellectually and academically, yes, we should. In the real world—and I say this to a room full of elected members—road and bridge building in particular are very popular with the electorate, and they will ensure that you get re-elected, at both national and local levels. Doing stuff that drivers dislike is a pretty good way of losing an election. One example is the M4 bus lane, and George Mair will know how well bus priority has played in Aberdeen from time to time, both with voters and with The Press and Journal. Sometimes you have to make pragmatic decisions as elected members.

George Mair

I am not going to surprise you. I think we do need help. That would be my biggest plea for the industry. David Begg hit it on the nail: if we do not tackle the bus speed issue, the bus industry will continue to die. If you inject some money not into the bus companies but into improving infrastructure for the customer, making it nicer to travel and getting them through the traffic congestion, that will help everything. It will help with the environmental challenge and it will reduce the number of car journeys. There is a growing awareness that we need to tackle this but, until there is the money to do it, we will not do so. We need to get on. They could be hard, difficult decisions, but the right decisions need to be taken.

Professor Gray

It is not just about the money; it is also about the political will. The two need to go hand in hand. Without the political will from members and local authorities, things do not get done, as you know.

George Mair

I was trying to be diplomatic in saying that it will be difficult. It will be difficult, but we have to get on with it. We are dealing with air quality and low-emission zones. If we do not tie into that and do the things that we need to do to manage traffic, it is a missed opportunity.

The Convener

What you are saying echoes what I was asking about earlier: speeding up buses and speeding up the information that is available to passengers, to ensure that they know when they can travel at the most effective time and in the most effective way for them. That is all about information technology at bus stops, apps and all the rest of it.

Chris Day

I would like to pick up on that point, particularly given the discussion that took place during the previous evidence session, when you touched on the issue of compatibility difficulties in relation to smart ticketing. There is also an issue with real-time information. Some bus operators, for whatever reason, equip themselves with information technology that is not compatible with real-time information displays on streets. I would encourage the Scottish Government to roll that into whatever it is doing on smart ticketing. Otherwise, you will end up with a Betamax and VHS situation with real-time information, which would be daft.

The Convener

Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our questions. George, you kindly volunteered to help Stewart Stevenson—and all of the committee—with the differences between the two sections that he cited. I look forward to seeing the result of that.

Thank you all for your time this morning and for giving evidence to the committee.

The Convener

Item 3 is the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Are there any members who want to declare any interests in relation to transport? No? Perfect.

This is our fourth evidence session on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, and today we are focusing on low-emission zones. This session will also touch on the parking prohibition provisions in the bill. I welcome Martin Reid, policy director at the Road Haulage Association; Gavin Thomson, air pollution campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, representing Scottish Environment LINK, Tony Kenmuir, treasurer and member of the executive committee of the Scottish Taxi Association; and Neil Greig, policy and research director of IAM RoadSmart.

There is a series of questions. Those of you who have given evidence before will know that, if you want to answer a question, you need to catch my eye so that I can bring you in. You do not need to touch the buttons in front of you. The gentleman on your left will automatically activate the microphone in front of you. If you see me waving my pen like this, that probably means that I am trying to encourage you to wind up what you are saying—it saves me having to cut you off.

Welcome to the committee. The first question this morning is from John Finnie.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Good morning, panel. There are a number of perhaps slightly more technical questions to come, so I will kick off by rolling a couple of general ones together. What is your position on the principle of establishing low-emission zones in Scotland? What impact, if any, will they have on reducing air pollution at recognised hot spots?

Gavin Thomson (Scottish Environment LINK)

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting me to speak. I am the air pollution campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, and we think that the Transport (Scotland) Bill could offer a great opportunity to reduce air pollution, not just through low-emission zones but through the rest of the bill. Low-emission zones are used across Europe as a great way of reducing air pollution, which primarily comes from traffic. We know the health evidence on air pollution; there are fresh stories every week that are alarming. We know that air pollution shortens lives. It damages hearts and lungs. In the most recent story we learned that it impairs cognitive ability. It increases the risk of dementia. It can reach unborn babies through the placenta. It is clear that we need to take action. Low-emission zones are one tool to improve air quality.

The provisions in the bill certainly need to be improved to ensure that we protect people’s health, but that is possible if certain changes are made. A helpful lens to use as we analyse the provisions in the bill and discuss them this morning is that, fundamentally, we are looking at a public health policy. As you said, it involves a lot of detailed traffic regulation, but what we are looking at is something that should protect people’s health effectively when it is implemented.

Tony Kenmuir (Scottish Taxi Association)

I think that we are all agreed that we want our descendants to breathe cleaner air. I should not think that anybody debates that. We are also moving towards cleaner vehicles and Euro 6 standards. I will use a quick analogy to explain what strikes me about the bill. If I am the driver of a motorcar with dual climate control in the front and I want to keep cool, so I set my temperature at 15°, but my passenger on the other side of the gearstick wants to be warm and sets their temperature at 25°, neither of us is going to achieve what we want.

The slight concern that I have about the low-emission zone approach is that, if we improve the standard of our vehicles and our fleet across the board, that is perfectly logical and reasonable, but why would we do it only in certain streets or in a certain area? That is the bit that I struggle with. Maybe every step is one step in the right direction, but the concept of a low-emission zone controlling the emissions only in certain streets does not seem particularly logical as a principle. Even according to your own report, the findings from low-emission zones in London and across Europe are, frankly, that the lowering of emissions does not amount to much.

The Convener

Martin Reid, do you want to come in on low-emission zones and the road haulage industry?

Martin Reid (Road Haulage Association)

Yes. Thank you very much for the opportunity this morning. Low-emission zones are clearly the way forward. This is the direction of travel that we are all going in. For our industry, I have not heard of any specific objection to the concept or the principle of a low-emission zone. Our concern is the timeframes that are being mentioned and the ability of our industry and the technology that surrounds it to accommodate these changes at this pace. As Tony Kenmuir rightly says, everybody has the right to clean air and the road haulage industry feels no differently about that.

The Convener

Neil Greig, as everyone else has had a chance, it would be right for you to come in as well.

Neil Greig (IAM RoadSmart)

I have just a quick point. Most of what I will be saying today is based on a survey that we did of 1,400 of our members. We have 92,000 members. One of the most striking findings was that only 3 per cent had any confidence that anything that any Government did would solve the problem quickly. A lot of the questions that we asked people were fairly evenly split, with a third in favour, a third against, and a third saying that they do not know. It is that big “do not know”. There is a lack of consumer information out there to allow people to make a judgment now, and I think that that is why people are sometimes slightly worried about this. They just do not know what it actually means yet. From our point of view, the key issue is getting consumer information out there and helping people understand what these policies mean to them.

John Finnie

The important thing about taking evidence is to shape this. The committee’s job is to scrutinise. From my point of view, it is good that there is consensus at least that there is a wish to see low-emission zones. Mr Thomson, do you think that there is a lack of ambition?

Gavin Thomson

Yes, there is a lack of ambition; specifically, there is a lack of objectives of low-emission zones. The bill does not set out what the low-emission zones would be trying to achieve, which is a concern, particularly when we look at the delegation of powers between ministers and local authorities. That lack of objectives could cause problems. An excessively slow implementation period and long grace periods mean that, under the current version of the bill, low-emission zones would not be in place until perhaps 2026. For an issue that we can all agree is essential, needs to be acted on and is imperative for human health, that seems unnecessarily slow and something we could perhaps look at in the emission restriction standards.

To make a broader point, we know that most of our air pollution comes from traffic. Essentially, we need to reduce the air pollution that we receive from private car travel. That is about modal shift and a change in the types of cars. The bill does not fill me with confidence that it will be successful in reducing our air pollution.

Martin Reid

Our situation is slightly different from that. We are not going to argue about the health benefits or disbenefits. We are not experts in that area and we will happily defer to those who are. Our position is one of current reality. We have no current retrofit option for trucks to come up to Euro 6 standard. Buses have it. I will add a caveat, which is that late last night, while I was preparing and not sleeping as I should have been, I read an article about a successful trial by a large waste management company using a clean vehicle retrofit accreditation scheme approved retrofit option. It may be that we are now on the cusp of something good happening in that area. We will cross our fingers and hope that that is the case.

Up to this point, we have had no retrofit option, so the option for our industry is to remove or get rid of the truck that we currently have and buy a Euro 6 engine truck. That is problematic, particularly for small and medium enterprises. A Euro 6 truck could cost anything between £80,000 and £120,000. The reality again is that the popularity of Euro 6 trucks, mainly through legislation and so on, has created a distortion of the second-hand value of Euro 5 trucks, so the barrier for entry for those who are wishing to adopt this newer technology has become greater.

For our industry, 2023 does not seem a long way away. I totally understand the point that Gavin Thomson is making, but the reality for our industry is that, should we be required or forced to jump early, technology is not backing us to do that and neither are the economics just yet. The percentage of Euro 6 vehicles in the United Kingdom fleet is growing every year. I will give a couple of statistics: in 2017, 36 per cent of the total UK fleet was Euro 6; in 2019, it is expected to be 50 per cent; in 2021, it will be 64 per cent; and, by the time the low-emission zone is due to start in Glasgow in 2023, all the indications are that 78 per cent of the UK fleet will be Euro 6.

The Convener

Could you clarify, so that I understand those percentages? Roughly how many trucks will be on the road in 2023 that will not meet the standard?

Martin Reid

At the minute, there are 493,600 heavy goods vehicles registered in the UK. The number that you are looking for is 78 per cent of that figure; it is a substantial amount but it still leaves a substantial number that will not be ready by 2023. The average life of a truck is between 10 and 12 years. We have to remember that Euro 6 came in in 2013, I think. Before that, previous Governments had recommended that hauliers bought Euro 5. Hauliers did that in good faith and now they are being required to change it earlier than their planned schedule. It is just to flag up that there is an economic imperative surrounding this that affects the industry.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I have a brief supplementary. Mr Kenmuir, I found your comments quite intriguing. We often talk about the de facto position that everyone accepts that there should be LEZs and it is just an argument about how, what, where and how much. You have brought a very different perspective to the committee for the first time, which is that, if we only target specific areas, we are not addressing the universal problem. You could read that in two ways. Are you suggesting that there should be no zone anywhere or that there should be a universal zone? By that I mean that there should be complete compliance or a zone should not exist at all. It is not clear from what you said which one you prefer.

Tony Kenmuir

When I was reading part 1 of the bill, I became interested when it started talking about retrofitting and whether that should be allowable. I found myself beginning to wonder why that would be an issue for you. Why do you need to think about it? The short answer to your question is that it should be universal. I am here to talk about the taxi fleet. There are 1,316 taxis in Edinburgh and just over 1,400 in Glasgow. If they are all Euro 6 or electric, what does it matter what street they are moving up and down? If they have all met that standard, whether or not there is a low-emission zone becomes moot.

If you design a little zone with a boundary around it, you are creating a whole world of complication. What happens when somebody in Glasgow gets a taxi to bring them to Waverley station in Edinburgh? Are they allowed in or are they not? The management of the environment and emissions is by definition a global issue and a national issue. It is a macro issue. To try to manage the climate within a few streets just seems to me completely illogical. It is possibly not a popular point of view, but it just seems to add unnecessary complication.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I want to follow up on that. We all know that London black cabs are long-lived vehicles that last almost for ever, but some of the older ones have an old-fashioned type of engine. You said that we could get them all to Euro 6 level. Is that likely to happen any time soon with taxis? I see taxis here that are 10 years old and have very old types of diesel engine. I would have thought that they are fairly polluting vehicles.

Tony Kenmuir

You said something really interesting when you mentioned the age of vehicles. Research in the German automotive industry shows that, with the emissions that are created by building car batteries, it takes 10 years to recoup the fuel savings that will be made by converting engines.

An age limit could be put on vehicles. I want to get across a specific issue, and I am glad that I have the opportunity to do so. We want to manage the emissions—not necessarily the age—of the vehicles, and it is much more economically sound practice to keep a well-maintained, safe vehicle that passes emission standards running than to scrap it and build another one to replace it. I hope that Gavin Thomson agrees with that.

The City of Edinburgh Council in particular has introduced very aggressive targets. Anything older than a Euro 5 taxi in Edinburgh has to go this year. There are 1,316 taxis in Edinburgh, and I am not sure that the City of Edinburgh Council licensing committee realised that scrapping everything older than Euro 5 taxis involves nearly 700 vehicles. Half of the fleet has to go in one year.

Peter Chapman

Will that happen by replacing the cars or the engines?

Tony Kenmuir

The City of Edinburgh Council has not given us the option of retrofitting. To extend the life expectancy of the vehicle, we can convert it to a liquefied petroleum gas vehicle. That costs about £12,000, and we will get an extra four years’ life expectancy tacked on to the age of the vehicle, which is capped at 10 years.

All the Euro 5 taxis have to go. We have until March 2023 for them to go. Therefore, the entire taxi fleet will be Euro 6 taxis by 2023.

The Convener

So that I understand, is retrofitting a vehicle to take it to the Euro 6 level an expensive option?

Tony Kenmuir

No—not relatively speaking. That is because the engine does not need to be replaced. The change from Euro 5 to Euro 6 involves just ancillaries, so the cost is a few grand. That is very affordable relative to the £45,000 cost of replacing the vehicle.

John Finnie

The discussion has been quite wide ranging. Can you expand on a point that Mr Kenmuir made on a subject that was mentioned in the Friends of the Earth Scotland evidence? It is about the category of special roads and the anomalous situation of having a zone in which, funnily enough, the roads that are the responsibility of the Scottish Government rather than local authorities are exempt. This is the issue of motorways and trunk roads. Will the panel comment on that?

Gavin Thomson

We said in our submission that, under the current provisions of the bill, motorways would be exempt from any low-emission zone scheme. At first glance, it might seem to make sense that motorways should be treated differently from inner-city roads but, in order to try to think about the long term and the ambition of low-emission zone schemes, we said in our submission that that should not be taken off the table.

I will respond to Tony Kenmuir’s comments. A very small low-emission zone scheme would not be much use. We would want a substantial geographical area to be covered by the zones in cities. The proximity of people, particularly vulnerable groups such as children and elderly people, to traffic pollution at the source—if a person is at the kerbside, they are exposed to high levels of pollution—means that we need to think about how we protect high-density urban areas in which there are lots of traffic and people. I think that we can all agree that having one or two streets covered by a low-emission zone scheme would probably not be effective or worth while. It would be great to see the first cities that are earmarked for low-emission zone schemes thinking about how the approach can apply city wide. We said in our submission that, in the fullness of time, motorways might need to be considered.

I return to the Euro standards for HGVs and taxis, which we have spoken about briefly. In our submission, we focused on thinking about how the approach affects private cars, which are the majority of vehicles on our roads. The standards in the policy memorandum are Euro 4 for petrol vehicles, which would be for any car that was bought new from 2004 onwards, and Euro 6 for diesel vehicles—those standards came into force in 2014. The current provision is that the low-emission zone schemes would be brought in in 2024 to 2026, so we could be talking about a private car that is up to 22 years old if it is a petrol car or 12 years old if it is a diesel one. We would expect to see those changes in fleet turnover anyway. The cars would not be around on the roads for that long. In the submission, we asked what the current provision does that the second-hand car market would not do naturally anyway. If we agree that low-emission zones are needed, surely we agree that they should be effective.

The Convener

The next question from Richard Lyle feeds in naturally to the discussion.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Tony Kenmuir and Martin Reid will love this question. The bill proposes that certain classes of vehicle be banned from entering a low-emission zone. Will that disadvantage users who will not be able to drive into a zone with an old taxi or deliver goods into the zone because the vehicle cannot be retrofitted? A penalty would be imposed for non-compliance. Many other LEZs—in London, for example—require a charge to be paid if entry criteria are not met. What option would you prefer, and why?

Martin Reid

Your points are well made. Should we go down that route, a number of vehicles would not be allowed into those areas, which would undoubtedly have an impact on service. That would also impact on the number of small businesses that would be able to access those areas.

Deliveries must happen. During the period of bad weather at the end of February, we saw that delays for a couple of days meant empty shelves and that deliveries which could not get through were missed.

Again, we urge a sensible approach. Low-emission zones that allow Euro 5 and Euro 4 vehicles exist across Europe, and they have reported good results. We urge not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Richard Lyle mentioned London. London is a great example, because there is now a situation in which there is a low-emission zone and an ultra-low-emission zone, and the London borough of Hackney is setting up its own different emission zone within the emission zone. We have to watch and guard that we do not set up a different system in different areas or cities that are taking on the concept of low-emission zones.

The geography of Scotland means that there is a very high likelihood that someone who delivers to Glasgow will deliver to Edinburgh or even Dundee on the same day. It is very unlikely that they will deliver to all three places, but that is a possibility. Having a vehicle that is eligible to drive into Edinburgh but not into Glasgow or into Dundee but not into Edinburgh seems ridiculous. We have to guard against setting up different standards. The approach will undoubtedly have an effect on the industry and who is allowed to deliver into those areas.

Richard Lyle

I have read that, in the likes of London, there are companies that deliver outside the zones and transfer goods on to other vehicles, which can deliver into the zones. Is that the case?

Martin Reid

Yes, that is the case. The idea of distribution centres is not new. Our members are paid to deliver from point A to point B, and if point B is a distribution centre, so be it. We understand that, in many cases, the trucks that go into city centres do not operate at their most efficient because of stopping and starting and congestion, for example. Therefore, that is one answer to delivery problems. However, I remind members that, for every 44-tonne articulated lorry, it takes 28 van loads to cover the load. I also remind members that customer expectations are vastly different from what they were a few years ago. When a person is having a glass of wine late one night, they can go on to a well-known shopping site and order something from the other side of Europe, which will arrive the next day. That will be done on the back of a lorry. We have to understand that the concept of service has changed and that even distribution centres will bring their own congestion problems. Even if electric vehicles take goods in from the distribution centre, the added traffic has to be considered.

The Convener

Tony Kenmuir, do you want to come in on that?

Tony Kenmuir

My business has carbon neutral accreditation—we supply cook pots in Guatemala and help to reforest Uganda to offset our carbon emissions. We do that because it helps us to win business from customers such as the Parliament and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

In our industry, we are moving apace. The standard of the vehicles is improving: they are newer and produce lower emissions. We are planting trees or doing whatever else we need to do to reduce our carbon footprint. We are doing all of those things because they make economic and commercial sense for us. There is a lot happening in the industry that does not need to be forced on us.

For me, as usual, the devil is in the detail. It is a question of rolling up our sleeves and making sure that what is applied is logical. I think that, by 2023, all the taxis in the major cities in Scotland will be Euro 6 compliant, electric or hybrid. That will happen without any interference or governance—that is happening anyway.

However, once we scratch below the surface a wee bit, we come across things that muddy the waters. For example, in Edinburgh and Glasgow at the moment, it is okay to sell on or buy a Euro 5 taxi as long as it is already in the city, but it is not okay to import one from outside the city. I cannot buy a Euro 5 taxi from London even if it has lower mileage, produces lower emissions, is in better condition and would cost me less, but I can buy such a vehicle in Edinburgh because it is already here. Things like that, where the detail is overly complicated and not terribly logical, muddy the waters.

We are managing our fleet anyway. Dundee, in particular, is a leading light as far as the introduction of electric vehicles into the taxi fleet is concerned and is worthy of a mention. In Edinburgh and Glasgow, where low-emission zones are proposed, the taxi fleet will be where it needs to be anyway.

The Convener

Richard Lyle has a follow-up question.

Richard Lyle

I am reminded of the fact that there are 32 councils in Scotland, which have 32 different ways of dealing with taxis. I well remember that.

Do the low-emission proposals in the bill strike the right balance—I think that you are saying that they do not—between consistency across Scotland and local authorities having the ability to devise schemes that are appropriate to local circumstances? If not, what changes would you like to be made?

Neil Greig

Consistency is important for our members. We represent private car drivers, who do not want to have to have a different permit to enable them to go into every one of the 32 council areas in Scotland or each of the four cities. We are already seeing such a situation across Europe. Some of the motoring clubs that we work with in Europe put together a stunt whereby they stuck every permit that was needed to drive around Europe on the front of a car. With 26 bits of paper on the vehicle, it was not possible to see out of it. We do not want to go down that line; we want to have consistency.

In addition, we do not want the market to be distorted by the early introduction of measures such as the banning of Euro 5 vehicles. Even though that would stop people going into a low-emission zone, it would have a knock-on effect on the market in general. It would make it very difficult to sell an old diesel, which would mean that cars might be scrapped early and people would make losses. In other words, there would be economic impacts beyond the low-emission zone.

Consistency is our number 1 priority. We do not want there to be a different scheme in every area. That said, in places such as Germany, local authorities are going down the road of encouraging the retrofitting of Euro 5 vehicles to bring them up to Euro 6 standards. That is particularly the case for diesels. The technology exists and the process is not that difficult. Although we would like the same kind of sanctions and the same kind of controls to be used across the low-emission zones, that would not stop local authorities, if they wanted to, funding a retrofit programme for some of the vehicles in their area. There should be a bit of flexibility in that respect, but we believe that the core elements of low-emission zones—how they are run, how they are organised and how they are enforced—should be consistent across Scotland.

Gavin Thomson

I would like to come back on that point. As I mentioned earlier, there is concern about the fact that the objectives of a low-emission zone scheme are not set out in the bill, even though it says that any penalty moneys that are paid should be used by the local authority to further the objectives of the zone. We do not know what those objectives are, but the local authorities will have to spend money on them. That is a good example. We need clarity on what those objectives are. If one objective is a blanket reduction in air pollution, funding retrofit schemes might be appropriate. If compliance with the European Union legislation that Scottish cities are currently breaking is what is sought, a different approach might be necessary.

We all agree that national consistency is important. We said in our submission that various factors to do with how low-emission zones operate should be reserved to the minister, including the hours of operation and other aspects of how the scheme works, such as the automatic number plate recognition. There is also a section of the bill that allows a local authority to suspend its low-emission zone scheme for events of national importance. It is up to the local authority to decide what is nationally important, even though it would seem more appropriate for a Scottish Government minister to determine what constitutes an event of such national importance that it would justify the suspension of a low-emission zone scheme.

The Convener

I want to find out whether Richard Lyle would like to follow up on that, because we have a huge number of questions, and I think that some of what you are saying will come out later.

Richard Lyle

I have the answers that I was looking for. Thank you.

The Convener

I have a quick question before we move on to Colin Smyth’s questions. When we heard about the situation in London, we discovered that consensus is hugely important in getting people to buy into and take ownership of such schemes and to participate willingly in low-emission zones.

I declare an interest as an owner of a Euro 5 vehicle. I will not get rid of it before 2022, because it will have to earn every pound that I paid for it. Do you think that keeping a Euro 5 vehicle beyond 2022 would be particularly damaging, bearing in mind that I and many other people were encouraged to buy Euro 5 vehicles, as Martin Reid mentioned in the context of hauliers? I believe that 10 years is nothing when it comes to the life of vehicles in this day and age. Who would like to comment on that?

Neil Greig

I do not have the figure to hand, but some research was carried out that suggested that the vast majority of the pollution is caused by a small minority of badly run and badly maintained vehicles. Our view is that if the vehicle is maintained properly, although it will not meet the Euro 6 standards—it will meet the standards that applied at the time that it was bought—it will be a cleaner vehicle. Using it less will help, too.

We have difficulty in understanding why, even though local authorities have had the power to roadside test vehicles for many years, very few—if any—of them do it. A van or a car can go through a city spewing black smoke, yet nobody will carry out enforcement. The MOT regulations have been tightened up only recently. That is one of many measures that are being taken to improve the emissions from vehicles. We would like local authorities to use some of the powers that they already have to target that minority of badly maintained vehicles.

The Convener

As far as you are concerned, Euro 5 vehicles are less of a problem than badly maintained vehicles.

Neil Greig

A badly maintained Euro 6 vehicle will be as much of an issue as a badly maintained Euro 5 vehicle.

The Convener

Tony Kenmuir would like to answer that question, too.

Tony Kenmuir

You have echoed a point that I made earlier. It is far more ecologically sound to keep a well-maintained vehicle running than it is to replace it with a new one. The licensing authorities around Scotland all have a testing regime whereby they bring the taxis in for annual inspections. Sometimes, they inspect them on a six-monthly basis; as vehicles get older, they might be inspected even more frequently than that. As part of that process, the vehicles’ emissions are tested. Perhaps naively, I have taken that for granted.

You mentioned London, where bus usage is falling. Private car ownership is tailing off there, too. I have heard an interesting theory that that is because people find it a distraction from looking at their smartphone. [Laughter.] An exponential rise in on-demand transport, which is the space that we occupy, is taking place. In London, there were 6 million journeys a day in on-demand transport in 2016, and last year there were 30 million journeys—the figure increased by a factor of five in one year. According to Morgan Stanley, half of all driven miles will be in on-demand transport by 2025, so our marketplace is growing exponentially.

The only issue for us is that any given licensing authority might have slightly different regulation for the public hire taxi. In other words, there might be slightly different licensing regimes. Our only concern is that a public hire taxi that is licensed in one area can make it in to drop off in a low-emission zone in another area. As long as the public hire taxi has access—it is hard to believe that anyone would rule that out—and the local authorities manage their emissions on a scale, we will be happy.

The Convener

Martin Reid, do you want to say something brief about Euro 5 and Euro 6?

Martin Reid

I will be as quick as humanly possible. Euro 5 is not too much of an issue for us. We understand the need for Euro 6 as it is categorised as ultra-low emission, but we have the most heavily regulated industry. We are far more heavily regulated than the aviation industry, for example. We have legal requirements for the maintenance of our vehicles. We also have spot checks from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, and we are under the auspices of a traffic commissioner. If you do not uphold the promises that you made on your operator’s licence—including environmental concerns—you could lose your licence. The traffic commissioner can take a number of different steps.

We understand the requirement for Euro 6 but it would not be a disaster for our industry should Euro 5 be considered appropriate. It would also help a number of hauliers who would find it difficult to bridge the gap. However, as I said, we understand the position on Euro 6.

The Convener

Gavin Thomson, do you want to comment on private Euro 5 cars? I will have to ask you to be brief.

Gavin Thomson

As a point of clarification, convener, you mentioned that you will not be getting rid of your car before 2022, which is great but, as the bill is drafted, the low-emission zone schemes will not affect you until many years after that. We need to bear in mind for turnover of fleet and particularly for people thinking that they need to buy a new car that we are looking quite far into the future on some of this stuff. Under the provisions in the bill, 2024 would be the earliest that a local authority would be allowed to implement a low-emission zone scheme. That is six years before people would need to look at changing their cars.

Another point that we have not touched on enough is that, in addition to turnover of the fleet and people changing their cars, we need to think about changing the mode of travel. That is why the low-emission zones in the bill are so appropriate, because in order to reduce air pollution, we need to move people out of private car travel. Public transport needs to be expanded and improved to give people a different option. If you still have your Euro 5 car in 2022, that would be wonderful, but it would be great if there was a bus option that made any journey you were thinking about taking just as attractive as taking your car.

The Convener

I take the point but getting a bus from the rural Highlands of Scotland down into Glasgow might be a challenge.

Colin Smyth, I am about to come to you. However, I am just noting that I am not sure if there is a list of exempted vehicles for people who drive old cars. If you have an old Morris Minor, or any old car, will you be penalised if you want to go into Glasgow? Maybe that is something we need to take up.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Earlier on, Mr Kenmuir made the point that the devil will be in the detail. One of the big challenges facing the committee is that much of how LEZs will work will be in the regulations set by the Government and ministers rather than in the legislation itself. That is obviously a challenge for us as a committee. Have your organisations been consulted or have you discussed the development of those regulations with the Government? Has it asked for your views on what those detailed regulations on LEZs should say?

Tony Kenmuir

I have a meeting with Transport Scotland on Friday to follow up on that consultation at a national level. There has been a great deal of consultation with the local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

I think this was touched on earlier. When I met representatives from the City of Edinburgh Council, they could not tell me where the LEZ was going to be, which vehicles would get in and which would not, and when it would happen. I took a lot of comfort from that. My concern is that when a local authority is granted a power, unless it is given very specific instruction on how to use it, it tends not to be applied. The instruction needs to be very clear and very prescriptive.

We are consulting with local authorities and with Transport Scotland at a national level, so we are comfortable that we are being consulted at all levels, if that answers the question.

Colin Smyth

Is that the case for all organisations?

Martin Reid

We are more than happy with the way that things have gone and the level of consultation that has been involved. We have met senior ministers and we meet Transport Scotland regularly. Having seen what is going on in many areas south of the border, I appreciate the consultative way that the Scottish Government has gone about this.

Gavin Thomson

I do not necessarily have regular meetings with ministers or senior staff within Transport Scotland.

Just to expand my earlier point, the commitment is for low-emission zones to be in place in the four cities by the end of 2020. We are now in October 2018. Thinking through the timeline for secondary legislation, not just the detail of it, we want to be clear about when exactly after the bill becomes an act we can expect to see the secondary legislation so that local authorities have time to include all stakeholders and ensure that they are implementing effective low-emission zones. The timeline of that is something to keep in mind.

Colin Smyth

On timelines, I want to come back to an issue that we have touched on, and that is the fact that the grace period is up to six years. I get the impression that there are clearly split views on the grace period. What do you think the grace period should be?

Gavin Thomson

As a general point, obviously we have spoken a bit about the challenges that face particular industries and how they clearly need to be supported through the transition. That might mean a different grace period for different industries or it might mean Government financial support.

More broadly, looking at the entire fleet—all the vehicles on the road—the current grace period of six years before low-emission zones are finally in place is far too long. There is an option for additional years and it does not seem to be justified. If we take a national approach to communicating the need for low-emission zones to people, the grace periods can be shortened by a couple of years.

Neil Greig

There is a need to have some form of grace period because consumers are quite confused. There has been a lot of change happening in emissions information. The information that is on a new car has all changed. We now have a new way of assessing CO₂ and NO₂ emissions from a car. Those are real driving emissions and that is where the dieselgate scandal came in.

The information on the car that someone buys now might say that it does 50 miles per gallon but no one ever gets 50 miles per gallon out of a car. That is the official urban and motorway figure, but a new set of figures is coming out. Consumers have to deal with a new MOT system and a new set of figures on the vehicle that might impact on company car tax, and of course they are taking on Euro 6 at the same time and trying to understand what Euro 5 and Euro 6 are. It takes time for these things to work through, and as that happens, they will deliver cleaner air anyway because there will be more Euro 6.

This week, the Westminster Government stopped the grant for hybrid vehicles; it ran out of money, and the grant has been slashed in half for electric vehicles. When high-level things like that happen, it also adds to confusion and consumers do not know what choices to make.

Allowing a lot of time is a good thing but, in some ways, it is also a slightly bad thing because most people buy their new cars on a three or four-year private finance plan cycle. They are starting to make decisions now about the new cars they will buy in the early 2020s. At the moment they are still not deciding to buy hybrids and electrics. We need to get some consistent messages out there. Certainly, over time, however, we will see more clean vehicles and the more of them that come on the roads, the cleaner the air will become.

Jamie Greene

We need to be really careful about the language that we are using in the committee. There is no suggestion there will be a six-year grace period. The six years is the maximum in the bill as it is currently drafted, and it may not end up like that, and it is for residents of a zone. The minimum grace period is actually one year for non-residents. A local authority has the choice of introducing it now or waiting for four years, and we do not know what they will do. It is worth making that point.

It is highly likely that the spending decisions that consumers and businesses make about their vehicles is based on the information that they have now. If we are being told that information is patchy and sketchy at the moment, but the zones could be in place by 2021 and not 2025 as Mr Thomson suggests, I am inclined to be quite worried that we are not giving out enough detailed information to businesses and consumers. Does anyone agree or disagree?

Tony Kenmuir

I am in a slightly strange position because the target is already set and Edinburgh and Glasgow probably have the fleet where it needs to be ahead of time, so it is done already.

The debate we had at that level was very aggressive. I mentioned earlier that, in Edinburgh, we will have to replace half our fleet in this coming year. We put a number of questions to the licensing authority, such as whether it had considered whether that number of vehicles would be available to buy.

I want to touch on one point quickly. The taxi trade is unlikely to receive any form of subsidy. We have had access to finance through the Energy Saving Trust, which has put finance in place for people who currently have the oldest vehicles. It started with interest-free loans for people whose taxis were more than 10 years old so that they could buy new taxis. That is completely wrong. You need to create a food chain. It will be the same for HGVs and other vehicles. There has to be a food chain. An owner-operator who is keeping his vehicle running around the clock, who is part of one of the big radio companies and who has a very high cost base, finances brand new vehicles, depreciates them over three to five years and sells them on. He has to sell them on so that he gets some return—some residual value—to finance the new vehicles. Therefore the person you want to give the finance to is the one with the newest vehicle because you want them to keep changing it and you want their vehicles to make their way down the food chain and create that second-hand market.

You are not going to get into that kind of detail here and I do not want to confuse you but I do want to illustrate the fact that the money is often not put in the right place. We are not thinking a couple of steps ahead to how the economy really works with these vehicles. I do not think those considerations are part of the equation at the moment.

The Convener

We are short of time, but you have raised an interesting point so we may come back to it later. Peter Chapman, could you go into your next set of questions?

Peter Chapman

Mr Kenmuir has led very nicely into my next question. We have heard about how the changes to vehicles are necessary and the costs that they incur. What, if any, financial support should be offered to vehicle owners living or working within an LEZ to replace or upgrade non-compliant vehicles?

The Convener

That is a difficult question. Who would like to lead off on it? Tony Kenmuir?

Tony Kenmuir

Will I put a number on it?

The Convener

Your previous comment made your position clear.

Neil Greig

The survey that we did on this showed that, among private car drivers, the most popular option was to subsidise better buses, vans and lorries. It is this them and us thing—private cars versus the larger vehicles. Certainly, there is a perception out there that buses, lorries and vans are the main issue and therefore private car people would like to see the money targeted on those vehicles first.

I cannot give you a figure for what you would need to give people. If you have that clarity, people know the timescales and so on, it will help the market to stabilise. It is a very difficult market for second-hand electric vehicles at the moment because there are so few.

I will quote a figure I got yesterday from the “RAC Report on Motoring 2018”. It asked Scots what their choice of next vehicle will be and 17 per cent chose a diesel, 54 per cent a petrol, 14 per cent a conventional hybrid, 6 per cent a plug-in hybrid, and only 2 per cent a purely electrical vehicle. People are still not thinking about the most environmentally-friendly vehicles, so that situation needs to change. Incentives will help that, but getting the incentives in the right place and to the right people is quite a challenge.

On the face of it, we thought that a diesel scrappage scheme would be great but an analysis of that has shown it does not necessarily deliver what you want either. Therefore you have to be very careful where the money is targeted.

We need consistent messaging about the money because grants can suddenly stop and that distorts the market. In general terms, private car motorists would like to see money spent on the larger vehicles rather than on their own vehicles.

The Convener

Does Martin Reid want all the money to go to lorries?

Martin Reid

That sounds like a wonderful idea. [Laughter.] I mentioned that although technically there is no approved retrofit option just now, GreenUrban Technologies Ltd has indicated that, depending on engine size, retrofitting an HGV would run between £11,000 and £25,000, which is a fairly substantial investment.

I will give a bit of context to let you understand how the industry has been let down in the past. As some members may know, a class action was brought against the truck manufacturers, which were found guilty of price fixing over the period 1997 to 2011. I am not going to divulge too much about this because there is a case in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, but part of the argument is about the price fixing of Euro 6 technology and the delay in implementing it. The truck manufacturers had the Euro 6 technology, but delayed bringing it to the industry so that they could get rid of their Euro 5 stock. We were stymied at the start of this, and the knock-on effect is that we are not as far ahead as we should be.

We had a chat outside the room about how much easier it is to bring an industry to the point where you want it to be by helping it, rather than by dragging it kicking and screaming. Although we would love a scrappage scheme, we realise that a scheme is very unlikely. We would certainly like some help in the form of a grant, particularly for SMEs, so that the industry can upgrade and we can bridge the gap between Euro 5 and Euro 6. It is only over the past year or so that we have seen second-hand Euro 6 vehicles enter the market when the bigger guys move on. We have no option, however; you cannot buy anything other than a Euro 6 engine now.

Peter Chapman

I sound a note of caution. There will certainly not be a bottomless pit of money to help the process happen—you need to be fairly cautious about that.

My next question is about automatic number plate recognition. Do you have any concerns about ANPR enforcement and, if so, how should those concerns be addressed? The Road Haulage Association’s submission says that there are concerns about how foreign trucks would be policed.

Martin Reid

There are already issues with foreign trucks. Who knows—maybe Brexit will sort that out. We will have to wait to find out.

Our main concern with ANPR relates to the number of private plates in our industry. Those private plates get moved around the fleet. Through ANPR, it would be fairly easy to assume that a truck was older than it really was because of the number plate on it. It is not a flawless system.

ANPR is a good thing, particularly when it comes to compliance. We see that from its use on bridges and so on—we deal with Transport Scotland a lot in relation to findings and the education process. However, it is not without its problems for our industry.

Peter Chapman

Do you think that foreign trucks will be registered on the system? Will anybody know how old a foreign truck is, for instance?

Martin Reid

They are licensed in another country, so unless you can access that information, the answer is no.

Neil Greig

I do not think that camera use is universally popular, but it certainly works. It runs everything for private cars. It requires an appeals process, which can add to costs and so on, but we have an appeals process for parking and bus lane enforcement that is working okay at the moment.

Peter Chapman

Is the private plate issue that Martin Reid mentioned an issue for private cars as well?

Neil Greig

In my experience, it should not be an issue for cars because a private plate will still be linked to the V5, which will have the Euro standard on it. The databases should all talk to one another. At the moment, databases only tend to be used for things such as addresses and so on for fines, but if they can be linked to the emissions information, which is on the documents, that should be okay.

The Convener

We have heard before about low-emission zones and the cost of putting an ANPR system in place. It was okay in London because the system was tied in with congestion charging. We have not had any pricing for ANPR cameras around low-emission zones. It would not be insubstantial, even if static cameras were to be used. There was certainly some feeling that the fines would not cover the costs of implementation in London. Maybe we need to look at that more.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I had a couple of questions about the Road Haulage Association’s submission, but I will roll them into one. The other witnesses may want to comment, but this is aimed at Martin Reid.

In your submission, you say:

“In the worst case, a haulier failing to comply with a LEZ could find themselves being brought to the attention of the traffic commissioner. We believe this would be overtly punitive for what could be a minor transgression.”

Can you explain that?

You also say:

“Glasgow will not have the infrastructure to properly enforce its LEZ until 2023, meaning the bus fleet will be unaffected by a LEZ”

but

“the road haulage industry will be penalised immediately”.

I did not understand that point either.

Martin Reid

There are two points. First, this has been a learning curve for us as well. You mentioned the point that we make about Office of the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland. We contacted Richard Turfitt, the senior traffic commissioner, to find out whether, as I mentioned, the promises made on a haulage licence application include environmental promises. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner has come back and said that it will not look at driving an ineligible vehicle into a low-emission zone as a serious enough offence to jeopardise the operator’s licence, whereas someone who tips hazardous material in their yard is definitely committing a serious offence. After we sent in our submission, we did some follow-up work—

John Mason

You have reassurance on that.

Martin Reid

We have reassurance that what we say in the submission will not be the case.

There are two sides to the other point that you asked about. First, the bus industry will have had four years of an active retrofit system, whereas we have no retrofit option yet, and 2023 is coming around very quickly.

Also, bus operators know what standard is going to be required of them, but we have not had word from any of the local authorities about the standard that we will be asked to operate to. The longer that that goes on, the less time we will have to adapt to the standard. We all assume that the standard will be Euro 6, but we have had no clarification of that. The bus operators have had that clarification so they have been able to get their house in order over a longer period of time. We do not have that luxury; we are only making assumptions.

John Mason

The issue is the detail around preparing for an LEZ, rather than there being enforcement of one sector but not of another.

Martin Reid

That is right, yes. I will not pass the buck, as other people were consulted, but we heard from Glasgow City Council that it is not confident of being able to have the enforcement side of things ready by 2023 so that the buses can be measured.

John Mason

Should the same equipment be used to measure vehicles in both the haulage and bus sectors?

Martin Reid

That should happen, so it is an equipment issue as much as anything else.

John Mason

It would affect the bus and haulage sectors evenly.

Martin Reid

Absolutely, yes.

John Mason

That helps to clarify things. Thank you.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I have two questions. I preface my first question by saying that, as it stands, the current law prevents anyone from driving on footways or pavements. In principle, do the witnesses support the prohibitions in the bill on pavement parking and double parking?

Martin Reid

In principle, yes. We absolutely support that and do not see any issue with it. However, we would point out that there are certain occasions when, because of the size of their truck, drivers making deliveries find it almost essential to go on to the pavement so as not to obstruct traffic.

Mike Rumbles

That means breaking the law.

Martin Reid

Yes, but in a lot of cases there is no delivery point at the shop, so if someone wants a delivery that is what happens.

Let me give another example. When someone delivers to a building site for the first time, they often do not know what is going on at that site. The normal practice would be for them to park up outside and walk in on foot to see what it is that they are driving into. They might not have room to reverse and so on.

In principle, we have no issue with the prohibitions, but there are occasions when our guys have very little alternative, other than blocking the highway, when doing a delivery.

Neil Greig

We have taken the fairly simple view that we do not like a blanket-ban approach. Local flexibility should remain. Clearly, we do not condone illegal driving. Advanced drivers do not do illegal things—well, sometimes they do. However, in certain areas in Scotland parking on the pavement is almost a necessity. It is encouraged by some local authorities. When I did a piece for the BBC recently, we quite quickly found a place in the west end of Glasgow where the road is marked out for parking on the pavement in order to allow access for other vehicles.

I do not believe that there are thousands and thousands of Scottish drivers deliberately parking on the pavement in order to block pedestrians, because they all become pedestrians themselves when they get out of their vehicle. I worry that in smaller towns or the suburbs a blanket-ban approach might have unintended consequences. It should be dealt with on a local, case-by-case basis. If something is an issue, it should be enforced.

Of course, the other issue is enforcement. If something is going to be unenforceable it will be ignored anyway—we see that with a lot of our parking regulations. It is the blanket-ban approach that we have objected to, rather than the concept.

Gavin Thomson

If a representative of an active travel organisation were here, I am sure that they would make the point that improving the pedestrian environment goes hand in hand with tackling air pollution. I guess that that is how we see restricting pavement parking and the low-emission zones being tied together. I certainly support such a restriction in principle as something that prioritises the pedestrian in the street environment.

Martin Reid

By way of example, without pavement parking there would be great difficulty in delivering to concert venues, music halls—that dates me a bit—and so on, where access is not necessarily from a road, which then becomes an issue for deliveries.

Mike Rumbles

I know that my question was about a blanket ban, but the bill allows councils to provide exemptions in certain areas such as residential streets. The whole point of the bill is to ensure safe passage for pedestrians and particularly for people who are disabled or who need a vehicle to go on the pavement.

Objections have been raised to the exemption in the bill that will allow people to park on the pavement for up to 20 minutes. Several people are concerned that, if allowance for parking of up to 20 minutes becomes the norm, the bill will allow people to park for 20 minutes and obstruct a pavement. This question is particularly for the Road Haulage Association. If the law was changed to allow parking on the pavement for 20 minutes as long as there was a wide gap for the disabled, would that be an appropriate compromise?

Martin Reid

If there is a facility to not use the pavement at all, our guys would happily utilise that. As for the 20 minutes, some deliveries cannot be done in 20 minutes, which becomes problematic. For example, with an order from B&Q, the driver might have to do what is called in common parlance handballing, which means that they will have to physically move whatever has been ordered, which might involve taking it off an uneven road on to a pavement and up a driveway to somebody’s house. It is very difficult to do that in 20 minutes, and it will be very difficult to do it without blocking a street or compromising the pavement.

Mike Rumbles

The whole point of part 4 of the bill is to free up the pavements for pavement users, but you seem to be saying that that will not happen with the 20-minute exemption.

Martin Reid

I am saying that, in principle, we are more than happy with that. We do not want to park on pavements, but there are deliveries where it is not possible to do anything other than that. The 20 minutes should be more than enough for most deliveries, but there are deliveries that will not be able to be completed in 20 minutes.

Mike Rumbles

You said when you answered my first question that the law is broken at the moment. Do you think that the provision in the bill is enforceable?

Martin Reid

Parking is a massive issue right across the country. When urban planners or planning authorities are looking to build shopping centres or anything in town, they rarely factor in loading bays. Shops need their equipment and houses need their deliveries, but deliveries are never factored in because space is such a priority.

I mentioned the bad weather in February, when our industry was vilified for making deliveries in the snow. There were countless shouts of, “They shouldn’t be on the road.” Where else are they meant to go once they are on the road? Sometimes, these guys are not making drops from a local depot. In many cases—certainly the ones that were called out by the First Minister—it was guys from the south of England who were on day 3 or day 4 of a tramp round the UK and who could not possibly get back to the depot while the bad weather was happening and there was no parking facility off road.

It is an issue not just across Scotland, but right across the UK. People seem to imagine that deliveries just happen magically by elves. That is not the case. There are practicalities involved in people getting things such as furniture, old people getting their food and medicine and chemists getting their equipment. All those things involve a delivery and, in a lot of cases, no provision is made for that delivery to happen.

John Mason

I want to pick up on something that Mr Greig said. I have sympathy with the idea that, in some cases, it is considerate drivers who put two wheels on the pavement and therefore do not block the road for Mr Reid’s drivers.

Have you picked up any information on whether councils are going to introduce a lot of exemptions? I have started a list in my constituency. I am at 20 streets—I think that I will get to about 100—where I believe that wheels should be allowed on the pavements. Are councils going to do that? Do they have the resources under the finance part of the bill? Should it be the other way round? Are you saying that councils should have to mark specific streets where people are not allowed to put wheels on the pavement?

Neil Greig

I do not have that data, as we do not collect it. I have had no feedback from our members in Scotland that they are interested in particular streets, so I cannot answer that question. It could work either way. If councils are willing to use that flexibility, we would perhaps be less dogmatic in our views on a blanket approach. Certainly, there needs to be flexibility in the bill, which is the key thing. There will be roads where the ban works.

Drivers are often like sheep, in that one or two neighbours do it and then everybody along the street does it. The one who does not do it is then vilified for sticking to the law and parking with four wheels on the road. You need to be aware of that sort of local community feedback. If there was a mechanism for gathering that kind of detail—it is the street-by-street detail that causes people hassle—and if local authorities were encouraged to do that under the bill, we would certainly welcome that.

The Convener

I am sorry, but I am not going to bring in Tony Kenmuir on double parking, because we know that taxis never do it.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

I hope that Mr Reid was not suggesting that vehicles should be exempt from severe weather warnings. There are plenty of places to park up if there are severe weather warnings.

The bill has to be seen in the round in terms of other things such as active travel. It is not just a case of allowing a single pedestrian to go along a pavement. In my view, pavements should be wide enough to let double buggies and buggies for the disabled pass each other. One thing that bothers me and that has been brought up by my constituents is parking in front of dropped kerbs, which is a real issue when vehicles are loading and offloading.

Much of what we are discussing today will eventually be set out in a Government parking standards document. Have your organisations been involved in the drafting of such a document or do you expect to be?

Martin Reid

We have had discussions in the area. We are not militant about it in any way. We understand that there has to be access and egress. We will not put up a protest about that—it is common sense as far as we are concerned—but there will be bad practice in many cases. We are involved and we hope that we will continue to be involved as the process continues.

Gavin Thomson

To my knowledge, we have not been involved. I encourage the committee to read the section of our submission on a workplace parking levy, which talks about how parking can be used to support work in other areas that are covered by the bill, such as low-emission zones and public transport.

Tony Kenmuir

We understand the principles of the conflict for space. Everybody thinks that they are a priority. We have a lot of debate with licensing authorities over the provision of taxi ranking spaces and so on, but we have not been part of any formal consultation on parking standards.

Neil Greig

By pure coincidence, Transport Scotland has invited me—along with many others, including a range of local authorities—to a parking standards meeting on 14 November, although I believe that it has been pushed back into December. Transport Scotland is actively bringing together people to look at parking standards.

The Convener

That concludes the evidence session. I would normally now suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave, but we have one other item that we are going to consider in public and I want to move on to that, so I ask you to remain in your seats.

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Good morning and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2018 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I ask everyone to make sure that their mobile phones are on silent. We have received apologies from John Finnie and Stewart Stevenson.

Agenda item 4 is the Transport (Scotland) Bill, and we will have two panels. Before I proceed, do members have any interests to declare? I see that no one has anything to declare.

This is our fifth evidence session on the bill. The first panel will look at the proposals on double and pavement parking. The committee will then take evidence on the proposals relating to road works.

I welcome Stuart Hay, the director of Living Streets Scotland; John Lauder, the national director of Sustrans Scotland; Iain Smith, the policy and public affairs officer for Inclusion Scotland; and David Hunter, a board member of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland.

I am sure that you are all well versed in how the committee works, but I point out that you do not need to push any of the buttons. I will call you and the gentleman on your left will make your microphone live. You do not need to do anything.

I try to give a warning to people by waggling my pen. The faster that it waggles, the closer you are to the end of your speaking time and I want you to wrap up relatively quickly. That will allow me to bring everyone in, which is very important.

The first question is from John Mason.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

We are starting on pavement parking, which I find to be an interesting subject.

Do you broadly agree with what is proposed in the bill? Will what is proposed actually happen? Last week, some of the committee was at Union Street, which is one of the main streets in Glasgow, where we saw vehicles parked on double yellow lines. It is one thing to set something out in the law but it is another thing for it to happen.

Would the proposed ban on pavement parking happen if it were put into law? Primarily, do you agree that it should be put into law?

Stuart Hay (Living Streets Scotland)

Yes, the proposed ban is very welcome and necessary. Councils need the powers because people tell us about how access impacts on their lives. I am sure that some of the other witnesses will talk about that. There are also issues about the damage that is done to pavements—they are not designed for vehicles. I think that the ban will work where it needs to work. Where the case is made by communities for it to be enforced, it will be enforced.

The biggest change will be behavioural, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to a behaviour change publicity campaign. Enforcement is part of the issue, and we need to improve the enforcement of traffic law in many different areas of parking in our urban centres.

David Hunter (Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland)

I endorse what Stuart Hay said—the ban is needed. As I am sure members are aware, for years—possibly decades—disability and pedestrian organisations have been calling for a ban. Pavement parking causes a real problem for disabled people, blind people and people in wheelchairs—anybody with a mobility difficulty is frequently disadvantaged by pavement parking.

The key test will be enforcement. Will a ban be enforceable? Enforcement will be strengthened by having the minimum possible number of exemptions from or exceptions to the ban, so that an attendant who sees a car on a pavement knows that they can ticket it.

Given that about a dozen local authorities still do not have decriminalised parking enforcement, we welcome the provisions on camera enforcement. In particular, however, we would like the exceptions for loading and waste collection to be removed.

Iain Smith (Inclusion Scotland)

Inclusion Scotland welcomes the principles behind the bill, which has been a long time in coming. This morning, I happened to bump into Ross Finnie downstairs, who, many years ago, introduced the first member’s bill on these issues. I am sure that he is as delighted as I am to see them finally in a Government bill and therefore having a chance of progressing.

We welcome the bill, which, as has been said, is very important for disabled people. It is about their rights and ability to get out of their house and go where they want to go safely on pavements. Many are trapped in their house because vehicles are parked on pavements, which means that they cannot get out in their wheelchair or if they have other mobility impairments. Vehicles that are parked on footpaths can be a danger to people with visual impairments. The bill is about people’s rights to participate fully in society, so we welcome it. However, we are concerned that it does not include the provisions on banning parking adjacent to dropped kerbs that were in Sandra White’s member’s bill. We would like the committee to consider that.

John Mason

We will come on to that later. My colleagues will ask about it.

Iain Smith

You mentioned enforcement. That is crucial, and I am sure that we will discuss it further. If there is not effective enforcement, the provisions will not be worth the paper that they are written on. It will be up to local authorities to work with their local communities to ensure that the provisions, if enacted, are properly implemented and enforced.

The Convener

John Lauder will now get a chance to speak, as everyone else has said something.

John Lauder (Sustrans Scotland)

In going last, there is always a danger of simply repeating everything that colleagues have said. I agree with everything that they have said. A ban will not be like turning on a switch. We will not instantly solve the problem of parking on pavements, because that has become a societal norm over the past few years. Over the past 10 years, car ownership has increased, but access to cars has not. More of us are in three-car or even four-car families. That is becoming more normal, and it means that there are more people looking for parking spaces. It will take time to change that norm, and it will not be changed simply by addressing the law, as Mr Mason said.

In Scotland, we have a very woolly approach to parking enforcement. The approach is not always clear, and it can vary from local authority to local authority. Changing our behaviours is also an element, and that takes time. We strongly support and welcome the fact that that element is in the bill. As people have said, it addresses a human issue and a human need to make it easy for people to get out of their house and move along the pavement unencumbered.

John Mason

I have a major road in my constituency that is reasonably wide and has reasonably wide pavements. The buses on it are a help to disabled people and others. In order to keep the buses and the traffic moving so that there are two clear lanes for traffic, the council has painted white lines at the side, which strongly encourages cars to put two wheels on the pavement. That still leaves 1.5m for people to get past.

I think that that road works. There is plenty of room on it for two large vehicles to pass, and there is room for vehicles to park outside people’s houses and for pedestrians—with or without wheelchairs—to get past between the cars and the hedges. If that system works, would we cause more problems by forcing cars fully on to the road? Would that not slow down buses and fire engines? Would we simply create more problems for ourselves?

Stuart Hay

The street that you are talking about is exactly the type of street that could be exempted under the legislation. We are comfortable with the provision to do that. Any consideration would be locally led, so people would look at the type of street, the provisions and the impacts on people with disabilities. That is key. Such a facility can be created by putting a line on the pavement provided that there is sufficient access for people to use the pavement. If there is justification for that, councils could do that under the legislation. The bill would make the procedures that have to be gone through a lot simpler. It includes a more efficient way of managing parking.

The Convener

Does anyone disagree with that?

David Hunter

I do not disagree with that. MACS has slightly reluctantly accepted that there is a case for local authorities to make decisions based on local circumstances in the kind of situation that has been described. Basically, if it works, pavement parking is not a problem and does not cause problems for disabled people or other people.

There is a case for decisions to be based on local circumstances, so we do not object to that provision as long as there is a proper equality impact assessment of the circumstances. What we are concerned about and object to is the blanket exemption for the loading of bin lorries in particular, which would apply everywhere—

John Mason

One of my colleagues will ask about loading—I want to focus specifically on cars. May I ask one more question on that topic, convener?

The Convener

I will bring in Jamie Greene and then come back to you.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

This is a fascinating discussion. The good news is that there is cross-party support for the essence of what the bill is trying to achieve. However, people have shared concerns with their local members. Among those concerns are that simply banning parking on pavements will not reduce the number of cars in households, and that we are not making additional parking spaces or facilities available. By “parking on pavements”, I do not mean full four-wheel parking; in many, or most, cases it is two-wheel parking that occurs on our pavements.

I have quite a simple question. Where will the cars go? Some elderly people and people with mobility issues like to be able to park outside their houses in order to save them from having to walk from many streets away, where there might be an exemption. My issue is displacement: could an unintended consequence of banning parking be that we create huge traffic issues in small communities?

Iain Smith

There is an important equalities issue. We should not be creating conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or between disabled people and non-disabled people, in terms of road management. It is important that when we look at car parking, we do not just look at where cars may park, but at the whole access issue. We need to make sure that there are proper equality impact assessments of proposals.

The problem is that when the footpath is not wide—as in the case that Mr Mason referred to—vehicles being parked on it blocks pedestrian access. Why should pedestrians be treated less favourably than motorists?

The important thing is to get the balance right. Local authorities cannot just say, “Well, cars have to park there because there’s nowhere else to park”; it is their responsibility to deal with the shortage of parking space in communities. They need to work with communities on where cars can park safely and ensure that access issues for disabled people, mothers with pushchairs and elderly people with mobility problems are resolved.

Another issue is that parking on footpaths can damage footpaths, so even when there are no vehicles there, the footpath might be broken, which can cause trip hazards and so on for people with visual or mobility impairments, and can make it difficult for people in wheelchairs to pass. A number of equalities issues about parking on footpaths need to be taken into account.

Jamie Greene

No one is questioning the equalities aspect of access to pavements; that was not the intention of my question. My question is a simple one about where the cars will go. The vehicles will not disappear, but there is no provision in the bill to make facilities available. Anyone else who answers the question might like to contemplate that point.

The Convener

I will bring in Stuart Hay briefly, then come back to John Mason.

Stuart Hay

Living Streets Scotland has suggested in our evidence that local authorities should have a parking strategy. The problem has been building up over 40 years; we need to manage it and we need to be creative about how we do so. There are probably workplaces that have car parks that are empty in the evenings, right next to congested streets. Perhaps we could use such spaces.

We could look at new models of car ownership, including car clubs and that side of things. City centres in which there is real pressure are where car clubs can come into their own. Removal of parking would incentivise some people who probably do not use their car very often to switch to a car club. While people have a car, they will not join a car club. It is about changing our mobility profile.

John Mason

I have a final question. Iain Smith mentioned the need for balance, with which I totally agree. Would exempting streets, as councils would be able to do, strike the right balance? Would it cover the right streets? We got the impression that the City of Edinburgh Council would not exempt many streets. There would be a cost and hassle for councils, so would exemption strike the right balance?

Iain Smith

That would depend on the regulations and, under the provisions of the bill, the directions that the Scottish Government ministers would give. If the directions are very clear that a positive case has to be made for an exemption, rather than a case having to be made against an exemption, that would help.

It is key that there is proper engagement with the community, that there is proper consideration of the equalities impacts of exemptions and that access, particularly for disabled people and others who have difficulty when cars are parked on pavements, is properly taken into account before an exemption order is made. There should be an onus on people to make a positive case for why an exemption is needed in any case. Exemptions should be kept to a minimum.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I will focus on concern about a specific exemption—the proposed 20-minute pavement parking exemption for loading and unloading for businesses. At the moment, the law says that we cannot drive on pavements—it is as simple as that—but we know that it happens. The bill would give people a legal basis on which to do just that, because they would have to drive on to the pavement to park there. What are your thoughts on the 20-minute exemption? One of mine is that, if the bill gives a 20-minute exemption, that might become the norm rather than the exception.

David Hunter

I completely agree. There is a contradiction, which the bill would reinforce. It is illegal to drive on a pavement, but the bill would make it legal to park on it for 20 minutes. The principle that we would like to see is that pavement parking is not allowed, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

I endorse what others have said about creating a culture in which it is seen as being antisocial to park on a pavement. To allow people to park on a pavement for 20 minutes would run counter to that and undermine the creation of a culture in which parking on a pavement is not a decent thing to do because it causes pedestrians problems.

Because of that, we think that there should be no exemptions for loading on pavements whatsoever, because exemptions would create enforcement problems for parking attendants, who would ticket only vehicles that they knew had been there for some time, which would not be 20 minutes but probably a couple of hours by the time they went back and noted that the vehicle had been there before. Particularly in town centres, they would pass pavement-parked vehicles. As Mike Rumbles said, it is about loading. It would not just be delivery vehicles; people going into shops to collect goods could say that they were loading. We think that many tickets would be appealed against on the basis that people were loading.

The thing to do is to have throughout the country the clear and simple position that loading is not permitted on pavements, which is distinct from the question of exempting particular areas.

Mike Rumbles

Is there a compromise? David Hunter said that he does not agree about loading, but I always look for balance. In written evidence, Living Streets Scotland suggests that it might be acceptable if there were a gap of, say, 1.5m for disabled people and pedestrians who use our pavements. Is the solution a total ban on pavement parking and removal of the provision from the bill, as David suggests? How would Living Streets Scotland’s suggestion be enforced?

Stuart Hay

The simplest way is to remove the provision, but if the committee felt that, on balance, it did not want to do that, there is another option.

There is an overarching provision about obstruction, which could be defined in guidance. Part of the problem with the current law is that “obstruction” is not very well defined. The police have powers in that respect, but they never use them. A way to get round the problem would be to say that people cannot obstruct pavements. It would be up to the driver to make a judgment about whether they would be obstructing the pavement. The enforcement person could make a simple measurement: if a wheelchair could not get past, the driver would be breaking the law. That could work fairly easily.

An effective compromise would be to get the law right so that it says that obstruction is not allowed and to get the guidance right so that it defines “obstruction”.

The Convener

I will ask about a real-life example. Every morning when I come into Parliament at about 7 o’clock, there is a lorry double parked that unloads everything on to the pavement as part of a transfer process. The lorry itself does not obstruct the pavement—the obstruction is caused by all the crates, cages and food coming in and waste coming out. If we disallow one thing, will it not just create a different problem that is not covered by the legislation?

John Lauder

On that and the point that was made by Mr Greene, I say that we have not thought about the design of our streets for many years. The redesigning of streets is very important. For example, it might be easier for a parking enforcement officer to police a loading bay, which would prevent double parking and commercial vehicles being forced on to the pavement.

Sustrans is involved in placemaking and construction and design, working with communities. We have a great example of that from Dumfries, where there was a long, narrow, Edwardian street on which there was a lot of pavement parking. We worked with the residents of the street in conjunction with Dumfries and Galloway Council’s housing department. The residents came up with a brilliant solution to the parking issue. We have redesigned the street and built in loading bays, so it now works much better. That is because people applied a bit of thinking to how the street would function. A designated area for commercial vehicles to stop and unload is much better and easier to enforce than an exemption.

We need to spend time thinking about such things and about how we deliver in the urban realm. Internet shopping has grown; we have given that no thought at all. We could learn quite a bit from our northern European neighbours, who approach such things in a more planned way and do it better. That goes back to the point about having a parking strategy that Stuart Hay mentioned.

Mike Rumbles

I asked the bill team where the period of 20 minutes came from. Their response was that it had just appeared. There does not seem to be any scientific basis for it. If that provision is not removed at stage 2 or 3, how would you feel about reducing the 20-minute period and to what limit?

David Hunter

At the risk of repeating myself, I say that any limit—whether it is 10 or 20 minutes—will make it a difficult for parking attendants. They should be able to ticket any vehicle that is parked on the pavement. I do not entirely agree with Stuart Hay about the 1.5m obstruction. To go back to the first question on enforcement, we need to make the provision as simple as possible to enforce in practice, which would mean that pavement parking would not be permitted, other than in exceptional circumstances.

The Convener

We will have to move on.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Several witnesses have called on the bill to prohibit parking in front of dropped kerbs. As a constituency member, I have had calls for that in relation to motability vehicles and wheelchairs, as well as from cyclists. What are your views on that proposal and, perhaps more important, how could it work in practice?

The Convener

I excluded Iain Smith from the previous question—I apologise for that—but I will give him the first chance to answer this one.

Iain Smith

Thank you, convener.

Dropped kerbs are essential for people with wheelchairs or other mobility problems, because they enable those people to cross roads. Without them, those people are trapped. In preparing our evidence for the member’s bill on the issue in the previous session of Parliament, we asked our members for examples, and we got back comments such as, “Cars parked across a dropped kerb meant that I had to go round the block to find somewhere to cross the road and I missed a doctor’s appointment.” The issue is that important—it prevents people from getting where they need to be. At the end of the day, it prevents people from getting out of their house, because if they do not have confidence that they can get to where they want to be, they will not go out, which causes social isolation and other problems. There may be buses that help disabled people, but if people cannot get to them because the dropped kerbs are blocked they are not much use.

There are huge issues about dropped kerbs that need to be addressed, so I do not understand why the Government has dropped the issue from the bill. There is talk about the Government bringing in measures through secondary legislation, but that does not make sense to me. There should be a blanket ban on parking at dropped kerbs, with the option for local authorities to make exemptions if they can make a strong case for that in particular circumstances. That is the way to do it. The matter is better dealt with through primary legislation in which it is clear that, along with parking on pavements, parking at dropped kerbs is not acceptable.

The Convener

I see all the panel members nodding their heads, so I assume that you all agree.

Maureen Watt

Should double yellow lines be painted at dropped kerbs, or should the issue just be in the highway code or whatever, so that people know that they should not park in front of a dropped kerb?

Iain Smith

People are not allowed to park at bus stops, and that is just a general provision. The area has to be marked as a bus stop. It is fairly obvious that a dropped kerb is a dropped kerb. If the law says that you cannot park in front of a dropped kerb, you cannot park in front of a dropped kerb, and no further markings are needed to designate it.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

My question is mainly for Stuart Hay of Living Streets Scotland, but other panel members might want to come in. In written evidence, Living Streets Scotland asked for clarity on which pedestrian areas will be covered by the proposed prohibition. Why is the current definition not sufficiently robust and how could that be rectified?

Stuart Hay

We were involved in the previous member’s bill on the issue, and there was a lot of debate about the definitions. The term “footway” is good and clear and is referred to in another act, but there are lots of different types of path. We think that the bill captures all the types, but there is a debate about that—certainly, I have had a debate with my colleague from Sustrans about whether it does. We posed the question because we want it to be clear for motorists and for enforcement purposes that every area where people walk or cycle is covered.

Richard Lyle

You made a point about enforcement. People should not park in bus lanes and loading bays, but we often see people parked in them, which is frustrating. I could mention a number of pedestrian areas where I have seen cars or even lorries coming down to deliver things. Possibly, none of us has driven a lorry, but people have to deliver stuff to shops, and some of them are located in pedestrian areas. What do we do about that? Does it come down to the point that my colleague John Mason made about enforcement? If we pass a law, does it have to be enforced or will people just accept and obey the law?

Stuart Hay

It is a bit of both. Pavement parking is becoming acceptable behaviour for some people—although not everybody—and that needs to change. People need to realise the impact that it has, but we also need the fallback of some sort of enforcement. Some councils are better geared up to do that than others, because they have good regimes in place. Other councils will have to think creatively and may have to borrow capacity from neighbouring local authorities.

I think that what will happen is that there will be issues on specific streets and the community will have concerns, so there will be a blitz and then the problem will go away. There will not be inspections of every street all the time—it will just not happen that way. However, councils need to be able to send out a team where there are real problems. I hope that, in advance of that, people will be warned that the council will be out, so it might not come to the point of dishing out fines, but there will be a hard core of people who do not get the point that that behaviour is unacceptable, so they will need to be tackled via enforcement.

John Lauder

Buchanan Street in Glasgow is a good example of a street where there is a mix. Early in the morning, there are lots of delivery vehicles and trade vehicles but, for the rest of the day, it is a wonderful experience to be a pedestrian there. With good control, that can work well.

I thank Stuart Hay for reminding me of a topic that I am not clear about and that I would like the committee to think about. Increasingly in urban Scotland, we are considering segregated cycle lanes that are physically removed from the footway. That is usually done with a small angled dropped kerb, then a wide cycle lane and then a dropped kerb to a parking area. Stuart Hay and I are not clear whether, under the bill, parking on a cycle lane will be prohibited, so I wonder whether that could be checked, given that we are increasingly going for such cycle lanes. There is a good demonstration project on Victoria Road in Glasgow, which will link Queen’s park to the merchant city. We have similar projects in five cities in Scotland. Those very much follow the Copenhagen style of allowing people to get around by not mixing cycling and pedestrians.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

You have probably just answered my question, which is on whether the bill goes far enough to protect cyclists. You said that it is not clear whether a ban on parking on cycle paths is proposed.

John Lauder

That is right. It is not entirely clear whether that is covered. It is a technicality, really, because I think that the spirit of the bill is that people should not do that, but the issue is whether technically they will be able to do so. A great example is that, when people parked on one of the very early cycle lanes in Edinburgh, the Evening News ran a big story about it for one day and that never happened again, because people just got used to the social norm and thought, “Right—that is what it is for. Fine. I get it now.”

Double parking is a real issue for anyone who wants to get around on a bicycle, because it means that you have to pitch yourself out into oncoming traffic. That element needs to be tightened. One element that I am more sanguine about is to do with vehicles being parked for maintenance on a designated cycleway, such as a mixed-use path—it might be a former railway line that is used as a greenway. With some exemptions, I am sure that that could be managed. We manage the issue fairly well at the moment. That should be allowed only when it is a maintenance or service vehicle, rather than a member of the public parking.

The Convener

I have a point, before Colin Smyth asks his next question. There has been a suggestion that we should try to restrict loading and unloading to times when there are no pedestrians on the street, which would probably mean an early start for some people. That has been tried in some places. I hear lots of complaints from people who object to their bins being emptied at 6 o’clock in the morning, because they are trying to get an extra 10 minutes’ sleep. Are you suggesting that lorries should be encouraged to deliver from 6 to 7.30 in the morning, before the main build-up of traffic?

John Lauder

Yes. There are good examples on the continent of large towns and small cities that function perfectly normally and that control when deliveries can and cannot take place. I do not see a reason why we cannot do that. I am not suggesting that that should be a blanket provision, but in some places it would work well. I go back to the example of Buchanan Street, which works particularly well.

Colin Smyth

I have a follow-up to John Lauder’s comment about the project in Dumfries. I should declare an interest, as I was a local councillor and chair of the committee that was involved at the time. I am biased, but I think that it was a great project. It focused attention on the need to look again at the layout of streets and to better balance cars, pedestrians and cyclists. Will the bill provide an incentive to do that? Does anything need to be put into the bill to strengthen it so that we start to look again at that balance when it comes to public-realm improvements such as that project in Dumfries?

John Lauder

I think that the bill will focus attention on that. Mr Greene made the point about a high level of car ownership on a narrow street; that project is exactly the type of project that local authorities need to adopt and roll out. I understand anecdotally that City of Edinburgh Council has done an analysis of a particular area in that regard. I do not have an exact figure, but I understand that the council reckoned that it would have to put in some intervention in a fairly small number of streets. The Dumfries project is a great example of the type of project that could and should be done, and I think that the bill will lead to that happening. It will lead those of us who own cars to think about how we park our cars and the impact that that has on those who do not have access to a car. I welcome the bill and I think that we will see a gradual change and more projects like the Queen Street one in future.

Jamie Greene

It has been a very interesting discussion, and two things have jumped out at me. Is the panel confident that the lumping together of pavement parking and double parking is the best way to approach issues, especially around, for example, deliveries and the dropping of goods at people’s homes, where the tendency might be to double park rather than pavement park, which I think that we all agree is unacceptable? If we accept the suggestion of including dropped kerb parking with double parking and pavement parking, should they all be treated the same or should we treat them as separate occurrences, which can be dealt with differently? The bill as it stands does not do that.

David Hunter

From MACS’s point of view, we are concerned about pavement parking. Double parking clearly causes a number of problems for cyclists, buses, cars and so on, but those are not the problems that affect disabled people. If a better pavement parking ban was achieved as a result of separating provisions for double parking from those for pavement parking, we could probably live with that. However, other panel members might not be so happy with that. We want a firm, clear line for everyone on pavement parking to create that culture and easy enforcement environment that has been a bit of a theme in the discussion so far.

The Convener

Iain Smith, do you want to come back in? You smiled wryly when David Hunter said that you might disagree.

Iain Smith

It is only a slight disagreement. Our focus is particularly on pavement parking and parking at dropped kerbs because those are the big issues that affect mobility and equality for disabled people. However, if vehicles are double parked, they cause additional problems for pedestrians’ safety when people are trying to cross roads. That issue also impacts on disabled people who might get past one parked car but find another parked car in front of them that they cannot get round. There are therefore issues around double parking for disabled people as well.

Richard Lyle

On pavement parking, John Lauder said that he sat down with a council and also made decisions with residents. Should it be just the council that says that people cannot park in a particular place, double park or park on the pavement, or should residents also be encouraged to approach the council in that regard? What sort of mechanism could be set up for doing that?

John Lauder

The project in Colin Smyth’s constituency involved a street where there was a real problem with parking and rat-running cars. It was a difficult street to cross and a lot of elderly people who lived in the street felt quite intimidated and just preferred to stay in rather than go out. The problem was that either they could not get down off the pavement or they could not get across the road, which had a crossroads. It was one of those streets that every town has a few of and which are acknowledged as a real issue.

It was the council who raised that issue, but we worked with the residents as a kind of bridge between the residents and the local authority. We got to a point where we had a pragmatic design that everybody was happy with and could live with, which was then delivered. I do not think that that would need to happen in every street in Scotland, but I think that there will be some streets for which it is a great approach.

I would say that 90 per cent of the people on that street bought into the project and are now very happy with it. Indeed, the residents have formed a development association and are greening vacant and derelict land, among other things. The project brought people together and created a sense of neighbourliness, and it solved the issue.

The project was a really good one. It was not expensive, because it was not infrastructure led, with people saying, “Let’s redesign things,” and it was not a case of the council telling residents how things should be; it was very much about the residents saying, “We are part of this and we will work with you on the design.” It took about a year of discussions before anything was built, and at the end of all that there was a solution that worked really well.

I hope that I have answered your question. As I said, that would not have to happen on every street, but on streets that are really narrow and tight for space because of parking difficulties, it is a great approach, which redistributes parking. That happened in the example that I mentioned: space was poorly designed and badly used, and we rearranged it so that it works effectively.

Iain Smith

One of the four outcomes in the accessible transport framework is:

“Disabled people are involved in the design, development and improvement of transport policies, services and infrastructure”.

Inclusion Scotland would certainly argue that by involving disabled people in the design, we get things right for disabled people and we therefore get things right for everyone.

That principle should extend to the community. If we work with the community as a whole in identifying problems such as bad parking and designing solutions and alternatives, we are more likely to get community buy-in and make it easier to enforce the approach, because the community itself will enforce it. It is important to involve the community so that there is a community-up approach, as opposed to a top-down approach.

Stuart Hay

I echo Iain Smith’s point. I think that the design of the bill allows us to do that. We do not want local authorities to make blanket exemptions where they think that the issue is too difficult; it is for the community to come forward and say, “We’ve got a real problem on our street with the impact of the bill; can we exempt our street or redesign it?” It will then be for committees of the council to come up with a solution, whether that involves designing a line in the street or something more creative. The bill allows that to happen.

Jamie Greene

Is anything missing from the bill? I appreciate that there are provisions that panel members might want to tweak or change, but has the bill team overlooked anything substantive?

The Convener

We could end up with a huge shopping list in answer to that question. While members of the panel gather their thoughts, I encourage you to limit yourselves to making one or two points.

Stuart Hay

First, school zigzags are an issue. Councils need to make an order to make them legally enforceable; we think that they should be nationally enforceable. Secondly, local authorities should have some sort of parking strategy. It might be quite light touch, but local authorities should be required to think about the issues and come up with a strategy.

John Lauder

I made the point about the need to check whether the bill will apply to cycle lanes beside pavements. I will restrict my comments to that.

Iain Smith

I mentioned the accessible transport framework, which was co-designed by disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, transport providers and transport authorities and was published by the Scottish Government in 2016. Its overarching aim is:

“All disabled people can travel with the same freedom, choice, dignity and opportunity as other citizens”.

We think that it is a missed opportunity not to have made reference to that in the bill—we wish that it was there.

David Hunter

I totally agree with Iain Smith. I have a copy of the framework with me. MACS confined its comments to what is in the bill, rather than talk about what is not in the bill, but there is clearly a long-term issue about making travel and transport much more inclusive for disabled people. We have not got that right at the moment.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

Did the equality impact assessment cover everything? It says in the policy memorandum:

“The EQIA did not identify any group that would be adversely affected by the new legislation.”

Does the panel agree?

The Convener

Who wants to go first? Iain Smith, you are not looking away. [Laughter.]

Iain Smith

Provided that the regulations, directions and guidance from ministers in relation to parking are sufficiently robust and ensure that disabled people are involved in the discussions and design in relation to all aspects of exemptions, I do not think that the bill will have an adverse impact on disabled people.

Some of the bill’s other provisions could have a positive impact on disabled people. For example, if disabled people are involved in the discussions about bus services, local authorities might enforce disability awareness training for bus drivers better and ensure that people are properly consulted before routes are removed, because of the impact that that could have on disabled people’s ability to get to the places that they need to get to.

The bill has positive potential, subject to the regulations and directions that Scottish ministers may give. The bill has the power to improve things significantly for disabled people, subject to how it is implemented.

David Hunter

MACS had quite a lot of discussion with officials about the equality impact assessment. We would like to think that we had a positive influence on it. There is nothing in the bill that would make any situation worse, except the legitimising of short-term pavement parking, which I mentioned earlier. The question is whether the bill goes far enough. That takes us back to the previous question and Iain Smith’s comments.

The Convener

I have a final, general question. Over the years we have seen a huge shift in what is and what is not acceptable. For example, it is now completely socially unacceptable to drink and drive—that is a change. Similarly, most people would not even consider parking in a disabled parking spot as an option. Do you think that there should be something tacked on to the bill that tries to make it socially unacceptable to do things such as parking on dropped kerbs and failing to consider others when parking? Does social acceptance have a role to play beyond legislation and enforcement?

David Hunter

Yes. We have all probably commented on creating that culture. Legislation is not the only thing. However, the changes in attitudes to drink driving and wearing a seatbelt were driven by legislation. We are looking not just for a law that is enforceable—although that is important—but to try to change attitudes. However, unless the law points in the right direction, it is really difficult to create that kind of culture.

Iain Smith

I agree with what has been said. Passing legislation is one thing, but implementing it is another. If the bill is to work, it will need effective enforcement as well as a change in culture and attitude. That will come from effective publicity campaigns and the Scottish Government involving the organisations that have brought the legislation to this point in developing those campaigns.

Stuart Hay

Local authorities need to see that it is something positive that will get communities to function more effectively. Parking is a problem and the bill would allow us to bring a lot of issues to a head, face up to them and come up with some solutions. They are not new issues. They occur when we create new controlled parking zones. People get used to those zones so they will get used to the new provisions, too.

John Lauder

My final point is about culture change. Culture change will also be required in transport departments in local authorities, particularly when we look at streets where parking is really tight and difficult. There has to be a culture change that says that such parking is an issue that needs to be tackled—we need the resource, training and planning to tackle it—and is not something that the department can forget about while folk muddle through. There is an approach that says, “It will all be fine,” and that will have to change.

We may well need to consider the impact on planning. That will be a gradual process. We need to think about how we plan our residential estates. Scotland has a great design policy called “Designing Streets”, but it is often not adhered to as well as it could be. If it were followed, residential areas in particular would be better designed around people, rather than vehicles. That is a big change that needs to happen in planning.

The Convener

On Friday, the committee was in Glasgow looking at some of the things that are being done there. There was a feeling that designing the street for modern-day use is critical, as is being able to create that flexibility in old streets—as John Lauder mentioned. The other thing was that if we encourage people on to the buses, we can reduce the number of cars. The elephant in the room might be increasing the availability and reliability of buses, trains and other means of public transport to reduce car ownership.

We have covered most things this morning. Is there anything that the committee has missed?

Stuart Hay

We support the workplace parking levy as an option for councils. It is important that that topic is debated and that the committee takes further evidence on the merits of the workplace parking levy.

The Convener

You have just provoked Richard Lyle, who wants to say something about that.

Richard Lyle

You are proposing another tax on drivers. I know that Living Streets wants that levy to be introduced, but as far as I am concerned it is a no-no and I would not support it. I have had discussions with Living Streets about that.

The Convener

We finish the evidence session on Richard Lyle’s personal view—it is not necessarily the collective view of the committee.

I thank the witnesses for coming to give evidence this morning. We are very grateful for your written submissions.

The Convener

I welcome the second panel of witnesses on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, from whom we will take evidence on the proposals relating to road works. I welcome Alex Rae, manager of Scotia Gas Networks, on behalf of Street Works UK; Elizabeth Draper, head of compliance and regulation for Street Works, Openreach; Angus Carmichael, Scottish road works commissioner; Mark McEwen, general manager of customer service, Scottish Water; and David Hunter, member of Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, who was also here for the first panel.

We have a series of questions. For those of you who have not been here before or did not see the previous evidence session, when a question is posed, I will look at you and if everyone looks away, one of you will get tasked with responding to the question. If you want to ask a question or answer one, catch my eye and the microphone will automatically go live in front of you when it is your turn. As I reminded everyone previously, I follow a Deputy Presiding Officer’s practice in waggling my pen if you are getting towards the end of your time, which is just to allow everyone a chance to get in. Please do not ignore that, as I am not sure what the sanction is when I cease to hold on to my pen.

The first question is from Peter Chapman.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

Thank you, convener, and good morning lady and gentlemen. You are the people who tend to dig holes in our streets on a fairly regular basis. I am sure that you are aware that the bill proposes a number of changes to the legislation governing the regulation of road works in Scotland and that you have all studied them. What practical impact do you think that the road works proposals in the bill will have on road users?

Alex Rae (Street Works UK)

I will kick off with probably a bit of a broadbrush statement. As utilities, we are not in the business to do bad road works. The road works that we have to do are done for a reason and doing bad road works is simply not good for business; it is bad for our reputation and our business, and bad because of the costs involved. We are therefore in the game to do good road works.

As a whole, we have good working relationships in the road working community between the utilities and with the road works commissioner and the roads authorities. There is nothing in the bill that means drastic changes; there will be some subtle changes and pushes into trying to work more co-operatively and efficiently. I think that, on the whole, the bill will be fairly good for what we are trying to achieve.

The Convener

I will bring in the utilities’ representatives first, then go to Angus Carmichael for a comment.

Mark McEwen (Scottish Water)

From our perspective, the bill’s provisions provide a framework to continue the journey of improving the high quality of road works, whether done by utilities or roads authorities. We welcome the establishment of and the clarity around the role of the Scottish road works commissioner; and we welcome the move to reinstatement quality plans. There is no particular provision that causes a concern in terms of the additional approach to regulation, noticing and penalties. Our perception overall is that that will generally just continue to drive up the quality of road works in Scotland, which we believe are currently of a relatively high standard compared with those in England and Wales. That is the journey that the bill will continue. It does not pose a particular threat to us but is an opportunity to continue to drive up the quality of our road works.

Elizabeth Draper (Openreach)

I agree that the bill is an evolution. A few provisions in the bill will improve the current situation, but particularly the quality plans, which will encourage more works to be done right the first time. It will prevent rework and having to go in and dig a road up twice or have traffic management. The quality plans will certainly be beneficial. The bill is a continuation of what is already there, but it is probably right to refine the edges as opposed to proposing something radically different. We are going in the right direction and it is about doing more of that.

The Convener

Angus, everyone is perfectly happy with the bill.

Angus Carmichael (Scottish Road Works Commissioner)

Absolutely. I should say first that the situation in Scotland is significantly different from that south of the border. We are fortunate to have only one Scottish road works register, because I think that there are in England around 170 disparate registers, and Alex Rae does not know what Elizabeth Draper is doing, what Scottish Water is doing and so forth. Up here, everyone knows what everyone else is doing on the road.

The provisions of the bill will undoubtedly improve quality and safety. The question was mainly about the impact on the public. The bill will lead to a reduction in disruption. As more real-time information comes in, it should improve journey planning time for individuals as well as reducing disruption. Quality plans will mean getting things right first time rather than having to return to the site.

I feel like I am among friends at this end of the table; it is not as if we are fighting each other day and daily.

The Convener

David, I will bring you in, because everyone is convinced that everything is perfect. Does it all work for you guys?

David Hunter

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to dissent a little bit. The discussion that we just had highlighted the problem for disabled people of parked cars on pavements. We think that road works are a serious hazard and often an obstruction for disabled people. We do not quite agree with the rosy picture that has been painted so far.

The so-called red book—the guidance, which has been endorsed by Scottish ministers—is very good and we appreciate that most organisations doing road works, whether utility companies or councils, pay some attention to it. However, on the way here this morning I took a photograph of a road sign saying that there was a diversion because of road works. The sign left less than 1m of walking space, which would stop a wheelchair user from using the pavement.

You probably all see that kind of thing in your constituencies every day. Ramps are generally put in when road works block off a pavement and there is a diversion on to the road; however, typically, there is not enough space for a wheelchair user to get to the bottom of the ramp, turn around and go along the route provided.

Application of the very good guidance that already exists is not good enough and we would like to see better inspection and enforcement. That was a theme of the previous discussion on pavement parking.

Peter Chapman

I need to dissent a wee bit, too. I recognise that you all want to reinstate all your road works to a high standard, but the reality is that very often that does not happen. We have all seen areas of the road that have been dug up and, within weeks or months, the repair has collapsed and there is a big hazard in the road for cyclists in particular—for everybody, really.

What is your view on the proposed inspection powers for the Scottish road works commissioner and their staff? Do you really think that that will drive a better standard of repair and make sure that repairs are high quality and will not need to be revisited a few weeks later? That seems to be the problem: the road collapses where the hole is dug and then you have a real issue. Can we be confident that the changes in the bill will drive a better standard of reinstatement?

The Convener

Angus, that question looks to be directed at you.

Angus Carmichael

I certainly did not mean to imply that road works in Scotland were perfect by any stretch of the imagination—they are not. I have a dashboard system that is produced quarterly, marking things as red, amber and green, and there is still plenty of red in it. I would say that we are better than our southern cousins. However, there remains room for improvement.

On safety, there is no evidence that roads authorities carrying out works are any better than utility companies. It is probably the case that utility companies are better regulated and generally perform slightly better than roads authorities doing that same work.

The provisions in the bill should improve the current situation in Scotland. It will be difficult to get it absolutely perfect; there is a lot of human nature involved, and a lot of different operatives, companies and contracts. However, it will certainly lead to an improvement in safety at road works sites, which is a big issue, and the quality of reinstatements. Those are the two main issues.

Peter Chapman

Do other folks on the panel think that the new inspection powers will put an increased demand on your teams to do the job better than it was done in the past?

Mark McEwen

To pick up on a couple of the bill’s elements, the reinstatement quality plans will be a key part of the process of developing a consistently high standard in the quality of works that are carried out. That will sit alongside the existing inspection and monitoring programme that roads authorities apply, which has a role as well and demonstrates generally for many utilities quite high levels of standards, although there is still room for improvement. There are also the provisions that sit with the Scottish road works commissioner to take action where there are fundamental failures in quality performance.

All of those elements will create a framework with added impetus and focus that will provide greater powers for action to be taken where there is not the right action or recovery. I am therefore of the view that the framework being presented builds on what we have already and will continue to drive up the quality of reinstatements and the quality of works on roads.

Elizabeth Draper

There is the penalty side of things when works are inspected and there is a natural course to follow if it is found that the right thing has not been done. The bill has some enhancements of that process. However, one of the biggest wins from the changes proposed in the bill will be from formalising the need for a quality plan, which will have to be agreed at the utility level with first-tier suppliers and any subcontractors. That will formalise up-front self-checking and a culture of getting things right at the beginning, as opposed to failing down the line and getting a penalty. That is what feels very different about the bill: up front, it puts the focus in the right place. None of us wants to receive a penalty and Angus Carmichael probably does not want to give a penalty. The bill puts the emphasis at the front end by stating what needs to be done and in what order, and how we are going to check it.

A key process that we have implemented is self-coring so that we are not waiting for authorities or Angus Carmichael to go in and take a chunk of our reinstatement to see whether it is right; we are doing that ourselves so that we can proactively find and fix. We can see what needs to be done up front so that we can fix things for the future. The bill will make a key difference in that regard.

The Convener

That leads on to Jamie Greene’s question.

Jamie Greene

Good morning, panel. I want to explore a couple of themes around some of the other provisions in the bill. The first one is the issue of qualifications for supervisors and operatives on site in relation to works being carried out and reinstatement. The bill seeks to strengthen the quality of staff on site, including contractors and subcontractors, by ensuring that there are trained operatives whose names are given to roads authorities along with information about their qualifications and so on. Much of the criticism in representations made to politicians regarding road works is about specific issues around reinstatement or certain practices that are not so good. Will the bill mean that the general public will notice tangible differences in the processes of road works and their quality?

The Convener

I will go to Alex Rae because he did not get a chance to answer a previous question.

Alex Rae

Will the bill change significantly what we do? I do not think that it will. This is not a criticism of the bill, but my organisation already has qualified people on site. When somebody comes into any part of the business, they must have some basic safety and awareness training, and basic training in what they do. We do not put people out on the roads to do works unsafely.

As far as having competent, trained and qualified people on the job is concerned, we have that already. Perhaps the bill might generate a bit more awareness for the responsible, qualified person on site of their responsibility, of the importance of doing things right and of the fact that they will be measured against that. Perhaps the bill will heighten awareness in that respect, but that responsibility is already there. The bill will tighten up what is already in place and enhance people’s awareness of their responsibility for their work, so in that respect the bill is a good thing.

However, as I said, it is not in anybody’s interest to put untrained and unqualified people out there. In the interests of their safety and that of the public, and of doing the job well, we have to get that right. We are not in the game of putting unskilled and untrained people out there. People who are not fully trained always work with a competent and trained person.

Jamie Greene

That is a fair statement but, as others have mentioned, it is not always the reality. I will furnish you with a short example. I recently dealt with the case of a utility company—I will not name it—that was inserting telecommunications equipment into pavements and had dug up numerous streets. After a complaint by local residents about the ramped access to a road and the lack of a pavement, I attended the site to check it out for myself. When I got there, there were a large number of subcontractors on the site but no one from the prime contractor. It was difficult to engage with the staff and no one seemed to take any responsibility. There were lots of comments such as, “You’ll need to speak to my supervisor.” When I eventually spoke to the supervisor, he said that he was a subcontractor and that I had to speak to the utility company, and he gave me the telephone number. No one on site could account for health and safety issues or the actions of anyone.

That is a real example, and I suspect that the same happens in other places. The reality is quite different from the perception.

Alex Rae

I agree that that is a bad example, and that that should not happen. There should be a person on site who has overall responsibility for the site.

Jamie Greene

Is the Scottish road works commissioner confident that the bill gives you adequate powers to enforce good practice and ensure that you are happy when you sign off reinstatement plans and so give more confidence to consumers?

Angus Carmichael

To roll back to your first question, which was on qualification, the sort of large organisations that are represented round the table here generally have pretty good systems in place. The company that I imagine that you are talking about is rolling out telecommunications programmes across Scotland, and there are issues with multiple subcontractors, which we are looking at. The qualifications element of the bill is being progressed in parallel with work that the UK training and accreditation group is doing on how it tests operatives. Currently, I could take a day-long or week-long course and, when it comes to the test, I could turn to the person next to me and say, “What’s your answer?” In future, the tests will be computerised and there will be a much larger pool of questions. That will improve the standard of qualification, in parallel with what is proposed in the bill.

There should always be somebody on site with a card, but I have come across sites where people have not been qualified. Openreach has a lot of single operation vans out there, and every time that I have personally stopped them, the guys have a card and they know the situation. There are challenges with some of the other telecoms providers, but they are aware of their obligations and what they have to do to improve.

One thing that will improve is courtesy for those with a disability when they come across a site. If people are aware of what they are meant to do in the way of signs, lighting, guarding, walkways and pedestrian ways, they will be more sympathetic in catering for the needs of people with a disability.

Jamie Greene

What do you do with repeat offenders? Under the bill, reinstatement plans will have to be submitted to and approved by the commissioner. The parameters for approving a plan are that the applicant can demonstrate that it is competent to execute the works properly and has quality control procedures in place. However, that does not seem to take into account the applicant’s historical activity. If a company submits a plan that on paper seems to be good but you know that, in practice, it has been less than that in the past, can you take that into account or do you have to judge only on the merits of the plan that is delivered to you?

Angus Carmichael

Currently, when I come across systematic failure, I have powers to impose a commissioner penalty. As you know, the bill proposes compliance notices, which will be an amendment to that system of escalation. However, where I saw a company routinely fail, I would be looking to take action against that company.

The Convener

Can I just clarify something? Jamie Greene’s point is quite interesting because it refers to the issue of a main contractor and all the subcontractors underneath, and is about trying to hold the sub-sub-subcontractor to account for a contract that is awarded to the main contractor. Do you feel that the bill deals with that? In just about every works contract now, a subcontractor is involved.

Angus Carmichael

The legislation puts the onus squarely on the shoulders of Mark McEwen, Elizabeth Draper and Alex Rae, who have to manage their tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 contractors.

The Convener

Does that mean that if Scottish Water, for example, had a subcontractor, somebody from Scottish Water would be on site to deal with any issue? Or would that still be done remotely by a telephone call?

Mark McEwen

We would not necessarily have someone on site. In fact, in many cases, there will not be anyone from Scottish Water on site. To take the example of repairs to water pipes, I have a team of people who carry out repairs of burst pipes, but we also use supply-chain partners to support them. We use primarily one partner, who will not necessarily have a Scottish Water person on site. The partner will, however, be subject to exactly the same requirements in terms of the quality of works and the ticketing required of the individuals on site to demonstrate their qualifications. They will have systems for the quality and safety of the works that we will have reviewed and signed off.

We also have a process of field service advisers randomly visiting sites to check whether they are happy with, for example, the quality of the signing and lighting guarding quality reinstatements. That process happens in parallel with the partner’s work, but there will not be a Scottish Water person on site where those works are carried out. In the operational world, we primarily use only one supply-chain partner for repairs and do not have tier upon tier of supply chain partners.

The Convener

But it seems to me that the most important issue, which is what the bill is driving at, is to ensure that tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers are aware of the implications of their contract. I note that all the panel members are nodding, so I assume that they all agree with that point.

Alex Rae

I agree entirely with what Mark McEwen said. As the principal contractor—I am talking about SGN here—we are responsible for the works on an SGN site. We are responsible, irrespective of who the contractor or subcontractor is, because it is our site. At the various roads authorities and utilities committee (Scotland) meetings and area RAUC(S) meetings that my team and I go to, we always say that if there is a problem and contractors cannot get through to anyone, they should come to me and my team and we will deal with it. We will take issues on board and will not try to shirk responsibility; it is our site and our responsibility, and it is up to us to fix any issues.

The example that was referred to is an example of something dreadful that should not happen and we need to take that on board. I do not think that anyone on the panel will say that such an issue is a subcontractor’s problem. It is not; it sits firmly with us and it is up to us to manage and control our contractors.

The Convener

I know that Elizabeth Draper wants to come in—she might be able to respond to Peter Chapman’s follow-up question.

Peter Chapman

One of the new things in the bill is the proposal that the utilities will need to state a start date and finish date for any works that they undertake. Do you have concerns about how you will do that in practice?

Elizabeth Draper

That refers to the start and finish of being onsite. Because of the very nature of the work, somebody somewhere will always know that it has happened. The current limitations of being able to state that something has been done are to do with connectivity and having the right information technology.

That provision will be subject to supplementary regulations, which will outline exactly how it will work and when it will come into effect. That is good because, from a technology perspective, we are not in that place yet. The Office of the Scottish Road Works Commissioner is working on an app that will facilitate that. There will still be limitations in some areas where there is no connectivity, but that is being addressed by time stamping when the operative sends the note, as opposed to when the note is received, which will help with connectivity. I do not see those issues as being insurmountable. The way that things are moving, we will be able to let the public know more quickly where we are doing work. The only limitations are technology and connectivity. It is absolutely feasible, but the technology needs to come before regulations and before any subsequent penalties can legitimately be enforced.

Alex Rae

I will expand your question a little into the noticing process. On the whole, we are okay at noticing, although there is a lot of room for improvement. There are various areas of noticing. When we are working on a housing estate, I am a great believer in asking whether it actually matters how much notice we give. To a certain extent, it probably does not matter, because the only people whom the notice period affects are the people who live in that housing estate. Yes, it is important that we work with that bit of the community so that those people are aware of what we are going to do, when we are going to do it and what access we need to their property. However, for the rest of the road-working community, the noticing probably does not matter. What is more important is that we co-ordinate our works and that we all work together. That is part of what the register does and what the roads authorities and utilities committee (Scotland) process does. It is about working together.

Obviously, when it comes to traffic-sensitive roads, it is far more important that we give more notice. As I have always said to people in my organisation, if you are working on a traffic-sensitive road, your best friend in the world suddenly becomes the roads inspector or the traffic police, because they are the people with whom you need to work and to whom you need to say, “It is a difficult and busy road. How are we going to do it? What requirements do you have? What do we need to do about pedestrians or access for disabled people?” There is a whole raft of stuff that we have to deal with, and we need to take more time with it.

That is one part of the noticing. The other big part of it is in trying to give as much advance notice of our works as we can. Within SGN, we are currently working on some clever computer stuff that will automatically upload all our future works into the register, so that we can look two, three or four years ahead. That is not about saying that we will go into a particular street on 1 October 2019; it is about trying to say where we are going to work. It is about trying to co-ordinate our works with other utilities’ road works and, probably more importantly, with the roads authorities themselves, so that they can look at it and say, “SGN reckons it will be working on that street by early 2021. We were going to resurface the road in 2020.” That is the point at which SGN should be saying that there is a big conflict there and that we should switch those works around. We will do our works in 2020, as will Scottish Water, SP Energy Networks and Openreach, and in 2021, the road works authorities will come and resurface the road. Then all the road works will be done. It is about that big thought. It looks great. It might sound like the old Carlsberg advert, but that is where we want to be. We definitely do not want to be doing our works the day after a road has been resurfaced.

The Convener

You will have to excuse my smiling. I do not recognise the fact that road works are done just after a road has been resurfaced. Angus Carmichael, do you want to comment on that?

Angus Carmichael

The current legislation says that works commencing this morning at 8 o’clock do not need to be in the register until 12 o’clock tomorrow, which is nonsense in this age of communication. Elizabeth Draper referred to an app that has been available since the summer. With the app, an operative can go out to the site at 8 o’clock in the morning and press a button on his phone that records the start of the works. When he goes off site, he presses another button that records the close of works. It is much more real time and live.

Not only does the app allow the roads inspector to get to a site while a job is actually live, even if it is only a two-hour job, it means that the works go on to our public-facing website. That is live information for anyone around this table who wants to do a bit of travel planning. The whole thing happens much more in real time.

John Mason

My question is on the area of safety and staffing. I understand that the bill will require roads authorities to meet the same requirements that you and other undertakers have to meet. I assume that most of you think that that will be a good thing, but you can tell me if you do not.

I understand that the two key safety requirements are that road works are fenced and lit. I smiled when I read about fencing. At 4 o’clock on a Friday, I see workers go off and there are nice delicate little fences beside the hole. They last for perhaps a couple of hours, until kids push them into the hole, on to the street or on to the temporary pedestrian way, blocking it for disabled people and everybody else, or they get blown over by the wind that night. The whole place is a mess for the weekend. Somebody comes along on Monday and starts working again.

It is all very well to put up fences, and I am sure that all the panel’s organisations are doing that. Is there some way, however, that the situation that I described could be improved?

Mark McEwen

Before we speak about improvement, I should say that we do not generally use delicate barriers. Having lugged some of them around, I know that the barriers are some weight. The barriers round excavations are quite robust, and the protocol is clear about the need for them to be weighed down by sandbags or something similar to reduce the risk of vandalism or high winds affecting them.

In areas where there is more risk of people trying to access excavations, we have started using a combination of traditional heavy-duty bright plastic barriers and Heras fencing, which you may be familiar with, which provides a double level of protection to prevent people accessing excavations. Although a barrier coming down can be inconvenient, the bigger issue is preventing people accessing excavations where there is a risk of injury, which is primarily what we are trying to prevent.

If there are any examples of barriers coming down, we are clear that people should report them immediately. We operate a 24/7 response that will ensure that people are out to address the problem as quickly as possible.

John Mason

The issue is that in poorer areas people are less likely to get involved and phone. In the richer areas, people will phone and complain, so in those areas holes get fences back round them. Holes in my area do not.

I take the point that there are different kinds of fencing. The Heras fencing goes over easily. Sandbags are a waste of time. If they are just hung on the bottom of the sign, they come off very easily. The sign still blows over. I like the plastic fences that have water or sand in them. They are much less easy to move, but they are not so high.

There is an issue. I will not go on about it but, clearly, some of the fencing does not work. Do other panel members have comments?

Alex Rae

I hear what you say, and I hope that we can disagree with it. The red book is clear in specifying the barriers that have to be used. They have to be of sufficient strength that they will withstand certain winds.

The red book is also clear that we should be inspecting sites on a 24-hour basis. When a site is left because work has stopped on a Friday, it should still be inspected on Saturday and Sunday. If people see a problem, they should please give us a phone. All our barricades have numbers on them and all our sites should have courtesy boards. Phone us up. We have a 24/7 operation and will have somebody out within one or two hours to fix it.

John Mason

Do courtesy boards say who to phone or who is doing the work?

Alex Rae

Yes.

John Mason

My experience of that is patchy, but I am not blaming Street Works UK for that.

Alex Rae

It is a mandatory requirement. We must have courtesy boards on all our sites. The board should clearly state the number to phone in the event of any issues, problems or questions. Certainly, in our case, that is a 24/7 operation.

The Convener

To help John Mason, could Angus Carmichael tell the committee whether the Scottish road works commissioner issues fines if the requirements are not met?

Angus Carmichael

There has not been a penalty issued on the basis of lack of fencing. I see that one of my predecessors is here today—perhaps it is remiss of all of us that we have not pursued that avenue. It is something that we are aware of. I have here the red book that we use, and that is the basis of the provisions in the bill.

David Hunter

Our main interest is while the road works are taking place, rather than the reinstatements—although there are issues there. As I said earlier, it is literally an everyday sight to see non-compliance with the red book. It is interesting to hear that there are penalties that have never been issued.

Going back to the bill, the section about fencing and lighting is rather unhelpful. It makes it sound like a very technical issue when, from our point of view, it is about accessibility and public use, particularly for pedestrians and disabled people. I cannot fault what the red book says, but it is unusual to find it being followed correctly in practice.

I do not know whether you are going to follow on with some questions about inspection, but that is a real problem. My understanding is that it is very rare for road works to be inspected onsite by local authorities. I think that they can charge only £36 for inspections, which I cannot believe covers their costs, so it disincentivises councils from inspecting. It is good and all very well for members of the public to report things—I sometimes report things directly to people onsite and they will often rectify them there and then—but we need a better regulatory enforcement regime, similar to what we discussed before for pavement parking.

The Convener

I notice that a whole heap of people want to come in. I am afraid that I will not get them all in, but I know what the next question is and that the people who put their fingers up will get a chance to answer it. Richard Lyle will ask the question.

Richard Lyle

We all agree that road works are important, and Alex Rae spoke about joined-up road works. I wish that they existed, because there is a road in my constituency that would win the BAFTA award for the most dug-up road. The gas company went in, then Scottish Water went in and then the digital company went in. They had a board and they all had a number, but the works took months and months.

In its written evidence, Street Works UK opposed the proposal that the Scottish road works commissioner should be given the power to issue fixed-penalty notices. Why did you oppose that proposal? Is it because you think that you may face penalties?

Alex Rae

Fixed-penalty notices have to be proportionate. Is it about punishment or trying to correct behaviour? It should be about trying to correct behaviour and getting the road works correct.

I take your point about the street where gas, water and then telecoms went in. I was thinking that it sounded really good, because what I was hoping to hear next was that the road authority went in and resurfaced the road. That would be brilliant, because that is what we want to do.

Trying to do road works at the same time tends not to work particularly well, because we all have different methods of working and different priorities. Where it will work, we try it, but it tends not to. Instead, we try to de-conflict the work so that, exactly as you saw, we might go in, water might go in next and telecoms after that.

Richard Lyle

You were painting a lovely picture of all working together, but I do not think that you are. You are all working in your own wee silos. First you dig a hole, Mr Rae, then Mr McEwen does and then Ms Draper, and the holes could be in the same place. Could you not plan it so that you put in the gas, water and utilities at the same time?

The Convener

Would Elizabeth Draper like to come in on that, so that Alex Rae does not feel that it is all aimed at him?

Elizabeth Draper

Sure. For planned work, that sounds like a perfect thing that could happen.

Richard Lyle

It is common sense.

Elizabeth Draper

In Scotland, we have a register that we do not have in other parts of the UK, which enables that collaborative approach for planned work. Believe it or not, as a matter of course, Openreach looks at what other utilities are going where we plan to go and at whether we can co-ordinate.

Of course, we must remember that, for many of us, only a small proportion our work is planned. Much of the work that we do sits in the minor bucket and is work for which we give three days’ notice. That work might be a customer connection or a blockage. We also do a lot of reactive work, in response to things such as faults or cable thefts. There is an opportunity to co-ordinate and the register can facilitate that. However, there will always be an element of appearing not to have co-ordinated, given that there is a constant flow of reactive work in the industry, which is absolutely necessary to connect Scotland digitally, fix gas leaks and so on.

Richard Lyle

Are you in favour of penalties or not?

Elizabeth Draper

It depends on the penalty. I see a penalty as a last resort. The point that I wanted to make is this: it is not a bad thing that we have not had penalties—although I would say that. There is so much more that should happen before the penalty is incurred. We talked about quality plans, for example, and we should be brought in to discuss what we are doing to improve.

It is not fair to say that we do not get checked. At the beginning of the year, we agree a number of sample inspections, based on the volume of our work in the previous year, and we pay for those up front. That is our statutory undertaking. We fund the inspections and we expect them.

There are also ad hoc inspections and third-party inspections, which are reported by other people. We support inspections and we also do our own. Like the other bodies, we have a 24/7 service; if something is phoned in, we will fix it.

Penalties have a place in the system, but they are a last resort. If the Scottish road works commissioner or the roads authority has to give us a penalty, something has gone wrong. We should be collaborating and looking at making improvements and changing behaviours.

A penalty should be a last resort, particularly given the size of penalties proposed. We propose that there should be a tariff of charges.

Richard Lyle

So, Alex Rae and Elizabeth Draper are against penalties. What about Mark McEwen?

Mark McEwen

We are comfortable that the provision for penalties and the like has a place in the bill. As was mentioned earlier, they must be proportionate and appropriate, but we have no fundamental objection to including penalties—as a final resort—in the bill.

The Convener

I will bring in Angus Carmichael briefly, because it is critical that he has his say.

Angus Carmichael

Some people see fixed-penalty notices as a cost of doing business, but I see them as an avoidable cost: if the work is done properly in the first place, there will be no fixed penalties. What is proposed in the bill is a small extension to the areas that are covered, from four to six or seven.

Working together in the same trench can be very difficult. Openreach might go in at a shallow depth, while Alex Rae’s company might want to go in at a depth of 2m or 3m. That is a very challenging situation.

I would like to make a little correction. I said that there would be no penalties regarding signage. However, one of my predecessors imposed a £50,000 penalty on Openreach for some of its working in Inverness and much of that was to do with the signing of sites.

Mike Rumbles

My question carries on from fixed-penalty notices and is really for Elizabeth Draper from Openreach. In your written evidence, you call for the creation of an independent adjudicator for fixed-penalty notices. Why do you think that would be necessary and how might it work in practice?

Elizabeth Draper

Through the roads authorities and utilities committee, we already have an independent appeal point for other charges. For example, if there is a disagreement as to why a charge has been levied, it goes through the RAUC process. There is a discrepancy with fixed-penalty notices in that under the current arrangements and in the bill, if someone does not agree with the situation, the case goes back to the issuing authority—in effect it goes back to the same person. The case might go to a slightly more senior person, but it is usually a technical issue and so the person would need a fairly detailed understanding of road works to be able to adjudicate. That means it ends up in the same pot.

We want to avoid as many debates as we can and things should be as black and white as possible, although we will always end up with some discussion. We want to ensure that there is a fair and just process. For every other charge, it would be adjudicated through the RAUC, which has a process that is well defined and has been around for a long time. At the moment, that would not happen for fixed-penalty notices—it would just go back to the same person or issuing authority. That seems to be at odds with a fair process. We are looking for something like the RAUC process for FPNs.

Mike Rumbles

What does Angus Carmichael have to say about that?

Angus Carmichael

There are parallels with parking tickets, which can be appealed against in the first instance to the issuing authority. It is very much the case that appeals against fixed-penalty notices would be to the issuing authority. I am relaxed about what happens after that and about changing the process, but the appeal in the first instance should continue to be to the issuing authority.

Mike Rumbles

I go back to Elizabeth Draper for my last question. Openreach has raised security concerns about the need to provide detailed information to the Scottish road works commissioner about Openreach infrastructure. Will you outline the reasons for those concerns and explain how they could be addressed?

Elizabeth Draper

We have concerns about providing our apparatus data in its totality for the whole of Scotland, which are mainly based on the fact that our network is critical national infrastructure, which we must keep safe. We have asked the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure and the UK national cyber security centre for advice on how the requirement to provide information would work with what they need us to do to keep our apparatus safe, and we await the output of that.

Any data that we hold must meet safety standards, such as being encrypted at rest and in transit and lots of other things. If we gave our data in its entirety to someone else, we would need them to have in place the same level of security as our systems have. We would prefer to continue to use our system—maps by email—which services 1.9 million requests a year for maps. It does the same job and anyone can access it, but it is our system.

If we had to provide our apparatus data, we would want obligations on the third party that held the data—the commissioner’s office—to keep it safe and secure and we would want some recourse to be available if the third party did not keep the data safe and secure. The area is complex so, ideally, an accompanying code or further regulations would clearly detail what needed to happen to keep the data secure.

It is not the case that we have no will to share our maps; we already share them, but in a controlled manner in our system. Our concern is that we do not put critical national infrastructure in any danger or at any risk.

Angus Carmichael

We have a system called vault that has all the information from Scottish Water, Alex Rae’s company, Vodafone, Virgin Media, CityFibre and all the others. Openreach has always resisted that. Vault is available only to those who have access to the road works register.

My personal view is that Openreach’s decision is more commercial. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport requires it to share information on duct capacity. The DCMS says that some businesses would never voluntarily share information without legislation to force their hand, and the DCMS has identified that collaborative information sharing about ducts would be unlikely without Government intervention. To my mind, the issue is more commercial than anything else, and Openreach is playing a game.

Mike Rumbles

Oh—controversy. It was all going so well.

The Convener

Yes—it was all going so well.

Elizabeth Draper

It is true that we had commercial concerns in the past but, if legislation requires us to share the information, those concerns go away. However, commercial concerns are not the primary driver—I have discussed that with Angus Carmichael before and I will get him to believe me at some point. The concern is risk based—our risk team and security team are concerned. We have a lot of detail, which we put in our submission, about what we need to feel comfortable. We have quantified the issue.

As it stands, if the obligation was created, our main concern would be about the risk. Without obligations on the third party to keep our data safe and secure, our issues would not be addressed and we would still be uncomfortable about handing over the data.

The Convener

We will park the issue there and move on to questions from the deputy convener.

Gail Ross

My questions are specifically for Angus Carmichael. Why is there a need to clarify the legal status of the Scottish road works commissioner?

Angus Carmichael

Both my predecessors had concerns about the issue in that, if anything had gone wrong, they might have needed to sell their house to settle their debts. The contract for the Scottish road works register, which approaches £1 million a year and is paid for by the community, is with me personally. If something goes wrong, how liable am I? I have certain assurances in place from the Scottish Government, and I am confident that I would get support from the Scottish Government, unless I had transgressed severely. However, both my predecessors had strong concerns about their exposure, should something have gone wrong—it is about clarifying that.

Gail Ross

Does that clarification need to be in the bill or can it be given elsewhere?

Angus Carmichael

I think that it should be in the bill.

Gail Ross

In your written submission, you highlighted the issue of permit and lane rental schemes.

Angus Carmichael

Yes. Fifty-seven per cent of English authorities use permit schemes; two authorities use lane rental schemes. Many years after Scotland, England is trying to introduce the street manager project, which is an English street works register. I do not think that that system will be as good as what we have. To make it work, the Secretary of State for Transport has required all highway authorities in England to have permit schemes in place by March next year. That is totally unnecessary because it will place an extra financial burden on organisations that deliver utility services, stifle innovation and remove community working, such as that which exists in Scotland.

There has been a lot of research on noticing and permits in England. Statistics have been produced that show the improvements that will be made through the use of permits. In Scotland, under noticing, we perform better than England is projected to perform under its new system, and we feel that our noticing performance has room for further improvement and that that improvement is quite possible. We feel that requiring all authorities to use permits is unnecessary.

The Convener

One of the issues that does not seem to be addressed—I am sure that every MSP has a huge amount of correspondence or dialogue with constituents on the matter—is that, during road works, lanes are marked as closed and left closed over the weekend to protect the workforce, but the workers are nowhere near and no road works are going on. Would permit and lane rental schemes not reduce that problem? It causes people huge frustration, particularly on some of Scotland’s trunk roads, and more work will be done on such roads. Sometimes, the roads are reduced in width and the speed limit is dropped when there is no evidence that that is required. That also undermines the restrictions that should be in place when the workforce is working on the road works, because people do not always believe that workers are there.

Angus Carmichael

Everyone is encouraged to be as open as possible about their timescales for works. Generally, that is the case, but there are certainly examples of what you have talked about. The examples that the Secretary of State for Transport down south cited when he was bringing in charges involved concrete waiting to cure or parts that are not available on Friday but might be available on Monday. There are often other reasons for sites being open but nobody being on them. Information sharing and signage are important. We need to explain that, for example, works are awaiting supplies or awaiting concrete curing, or something to make the reasons more obvious. Something could perhaps be added to my public-facing website. However, human nature being what it is, there will always be exceptions.

The Convener

I always give committee members a hard time if they mention constituencies, so I will say only that the A9 is a perfect example of that issue, park it there and give the floor to Maureen Watt, so that I do not incur the wrath of the committee.

Maureen Watt

Throughout the evidence session, David Hunter has highlighted some of the main issues that face disabled people around road works. I wanted to give him the opportunity to raise anything that he has not raised so far and to say whether his concerns are addressed in the bill. I would also like to ask the road works commissioner how many times issues relating to disabilities cross his desk and what tends to happen with them.

David Hunter

I have mentioned the common problems, and I saw a number of people around the room nodding, so they are not unfamiliar to you. Another issue is road works going on longer than they should do. It is quite common to see road works debris that has gone missing and been left on the pavement—sandbags, bits of barriers, signs or the frames of signs. That may come from subcontractors, from local councils or from the roads authorities, but there is a lot of road works debris littering the streets. There are a number of things that could be done. We have been talking about culture and professional standards, and I am not accusing any colleagues of a failure to commit to those standards, but I would like to see the bar raised higher in terms of being aware of those issues and dealing with them on a daily basis through quality plans. As I mentioned, I would like local authorities to be given more incentive to inspect road works while they are actually taking place.

Finally, I know that the commissioner has new powers in the bill to carry out inspections, but I think that I am right in saying that there are no provisions to enable the commissioner to recover his costs, so we are a little bit sceptical about them being widely used, as there is a disincentive for the commissioner to use those inspection powers when doing so would result in a net cost to the commissioner.

Angus Carmichael

On the cost element, other organisations, such as the Health and Safety Executive, do not charge for inspections. I hope that, following the completion of associated regulations, a financing regime will be established by the Scottish Government. Roads authorities currently recover their inspection costs. It is £36, and I noted that somebody mentioned that that may not be enough. That is based on roads authorities submitting returns to the working group. It is based exactly on the returns that came in from the 32 councils across Scotland as recently as last year. Alex Rae chaired the group. The group thought initially that that figure was too low and encouraged the roads authorities to reconsider their estimates, but it could not get the figure above the current £36.

Individual instances of issues relating to disabilities do not tend to come to my office. If they do, I refer them to the roads authorities responsible for that area to solve. If I became aware of activities that were causing systematic inconvenience to people with disabilities, I would absolutely get involved. Was there anything else you wanted me to respond to?

Maureen Watt

No, I think that that is okay.

The Convener

Those are all the questions. Thank you all for coming in and giving evidence this morning. It has been very helpful.

The Convener

Item 2 is the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I invite members to declare any interests in relation to the bill.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I am honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport and honorary vice-president of Railfuture UK.

The Convener

No other member wishes to declare any interests.

This is our sixth evidence session on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. We will take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson, and from his Scottish Government officials. The evidence session will be structured in three parts, in recognition of the large number of topics in the bill. The first part will cover buses and smart ticketing; the second will cover low-emission zones and parking; and the third will cover road works, canals and regional transport partnerships. The officials will change during the session.

I welcome the cabinet secretary. I think that this is the first time that he has been in front of the committee.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)

It is.

The Convener

For the first session, the cabinet secretary has with him Pete Grant, who is the bus policy team leader; Gordon Hanning, who is the head of the integrated ticketing unit; and Kevin Gibson and Debbie Blair, both of whom are solicitors.

Cabinet secretary, you have a generous three minutes—and no more than four—in which to make an opening statement on the bill before we ask questions.

Michael Matheson

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. It is a pleasure to be here to meet the committee.

I am aware that the committee has heard from a broad range of voices and viewpoints on the Transport (Scotland) Bill over the past few months. It is testament to the detailed approach that the committee has taken over stage 1 that such a wide spectrum of evidence has been heard from across civic society. I commend the committee for that diligent approach, which has complemented the Government’s significant consultation and engagement. I am glad to be here to set out my perspective and inform the committee’s considerations.

Members will be aware that the Transport (Scotland) Bill is a wide-ranging bill to take forward a suite of measures to improve journeys for the travelling public throughout Scotland. Those measures range from measures to improve bus patronage, including smart ticketing, to measures to improve air quality in our cities, to increase the safety and efficiency of road works and to address parking issues. The bill also makes necessary technical improvements in quite specific areas—for example, to ensure more appropriate financial flexibility and governance arrangements for some public bodies.

In drafting the bill, a collaborative approach has been taken so that its measures are informed by those whom they will affect. That engagement has continued throughout the scrutiny of the bill and will continue as the regulations develop.

Although matters such as low-emission zones, an improved framework for bus services and prohibitions on irresponsible parking will benefit many people, the bill should not be seen in isolation. Successful transport planning and provision require a series of interconnected measures and approaches. The bill covers specific areas that have been identified as requiring primary legislation, but a host of work is going on across my portfolio to drive improvement, not least the current review of the national transport strategy.

That wide-ranging strategy has seen extensive and sustained engagement with stakeholders and citizens across Scotland. It is forward looking, and we are planning our next set of shared priorities with the draft strategy due for consultation in 2019. We anticipate that the national transport strategy will set the context for any future consideration of legislative measures beyond the measures that are proposed in the bill.

I am aware that, as well as taking face-to-face evidence from Scottish Government officials and various interested parties, the committee has received around 90 responses to its call for evidence on the bill, and the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing from parliamentary analysts shows broad support. That briefing will give you a flavour of the breadth and complexity of the provisions in the bill, which are mirrored in the varied views of them.

I am also aware that the committee wrote to the Scottish Government with specific questions on a number of areas and received a detailed response. I hope that that response has proved helpful to your considerations. I am keen to hear from members today how I can build on that.

I understand that questions will be taken on a thematic basis, starting with the provisions relating to bus services and smart ticketing.

The Convener

Thank you, cabinet secretary. The first question is from John Finnie.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Good morning, panel. Cabinet secretary, you described the bill as wide ranging, which is certainly correct. However, you will be aware from the evidence that we have received that people believe that it lacks ambition and the wherewithal to address the decline in bus patronage, which is caused to a significant extent by issues such as congestion, which immediately impacts on journey times and reliability. What do you have to say about that?

Michael Matheson

The bill contains a range of provisions that will help to support bus service provision right across the country. It is worth reflecting on the fact that bus patronage has been in decline since the 1960s. That decline has accelerated more in some parts of the country than in others, and there are a variety of reasons for that.

We do not want to stand back and just allow patronage levels to continue to decline without taking proactive measures to encourage people to use the bus. That is why we are taking forward a range of measures in the bill that I believe will support local authorities and bus operators to deliver more effective bus services in their areas. The provisions around the bus service improvement partnerships, low-emission zones and smart ticketing will all support and encourage people to use buses.

I will give you one specific example of how the bill can help in that area. I am told that the average speed of a bus going through somewhere such as Glasgow city centre is in the region of 3mph. If that could be increased to 6mph, the journey time would shorten considerably. It would be more efficient and the services would be more reliable. The provision of low-emission zones provides us with an opportunity to take forward measures that improve things such as journey times and reliability, which will encourage people to make greater use of the bus.

I do not accept that the bill lacks ambition. It takes forward a range of what I consider to be pragmatic measures that can improve patronage levels and address some of the issues around bus use that local authorities highlighted that they wanted us to take action on.

John Finnie

However, you did not mention congestion, which we are consistently told is a factor that affects reliability and impacts in other ways. Is that a lost opportunity? Would you look to include that at a future date? Are you supportive of that happening?

Michael Matheson

The bill will take forward a range of measures. There might be further measures that we should take forward at a later date, but low-emission zones provide the opportunity to address issues around congestion, given how they will operate. The bill has measures in it that will address issues relating to congestion.

Bus service improvement partnerships will operate differently because they will look beyond infrastructure and whether we provide bus prioritisation in certain areas. The bill also allows partnerships to look at issues such as frequency of service and fare levels. It provides them with a range of different provisions and much more flexibility to deal with that type of issue in a way that they cannot under the existing quality partnership arrangements.

I would not therefore say that low-emission zones do not address the issue of congestion, because they can play a part in it, as can bus service improvement partnerships.

John Finnie

Also in connection with congestion, do you see a role for non-domestic parking levies or workplace levies in freeing up space?

Michael Matheson

There is no provision in the bill for that and we have not consulted on the idea. If there was an appetite for local authorities to take that route, I would certainly be willing to engage with them and discuss it, as it is something that local authorities should consider taking forward. As I say, if there is an appetite for it, I am prepared to have that discussion with them. However, there is no provision in the bill for that.

John Finnie

I had hoped that the Scottish Government would take a lead on that, but perhaps the idea can form part of some future discussions.

You touched on the national transport strategy. Is there another lost opportunity here that we might yet be able to take? It relates to poverty and the impact of public transport on poverty. It is a hugely significant issue. I understand that there is a poverty strategy, but what regard should the bill have to playing its part in that strategy? Every piece of legislation should try to interweave with others to improve. Would you be open to looking at the impact that the bill could have in addressing poverty issues that are significant in urban and rural areas?

Michael Matheson

Are you talking about provisions in the bill or the national transport strategy review?

John Finnie

I mean the link across all three, including the poverty strategy.

Michael Matheson

Yes, and I hope that that will be apparent when we publish the draft national transport strategy. I am conscious of the need for public transport provision to be accessible to people who are on lower incomes.

I am also clear about the need to make sure that some of the advances and changes that will happen in transport during the next five to 10 years do not exclude people from lower-income backgrounds. We need to focus on that.

Fairly recently, I was highlighting to a number of policy officials at a conference the need to make sure that electric vehicles and active travel options do not become middle-class pastimes that are accessible only to people who are on better incomes and that exclude people from lower-income backgrounds. We need to target and reach into communities that are hard to get at, so that they can benefit from those things in the future. That will be a core strand running through the new national transport strategy when we publish it.

John Finnie

Thank you. That is reassuring.

The Convener

You gave some long and detailed answers there, cabinet secretary. We have taken seven minutes to address question 1, and we might be here until tea time at that rate. Concise answers are always appreciated.

Stewart Stevenson

I will pick up the congestion issue. Cabinet secretary, you referred to bus prioritisation. We already have that in bus lanes, but the enforcement appears to be pretty variable, and the hours during which the lanes operate are different in different places, which is confusing for drivers who cannot read the six lines on a post at the side of the road. Is there an opportunity in the proposed legislation or otherwise to crank up enforcement and standardise the way in which bus lanes work?

Michael Matheson

Enforcement and whether breaches have been decriminalised are matters for the relevant local authorities, and it is important that they do take appropriate enforcement measures to deal with breaches.

With the introduction of low-emission zones, there is an opportunity for local authorities to make their enforcement measures more effective and drive cultural change in a way that they might not have done in the past. There is an opportunity to look afresh at enforcement and how local authorities do it in their areas.

I am also conscious that there can sometimes be inconsistency between approaches and in how different rules are applied. I am keen to ensure with low-emission zones that we have a consistent approach in the standards that will apply across local authority areas. I believe that the introduction of low-emission zones can help to give greater consistency.

Stewart Stevenson

I think that we will come on to that, cabinet secretary.

The Convener

Indeed. We will look at low-emission zones in some depth.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Cabinet secretary, why have you chosen to limit local authorities to providing bus services where there is unmet need and no private competition rather than to allow other local authorities to follow the municipal bus company model that is used in the Lothians, for example?

Michael Matheson

That is principally because, from our consultation and engagement with local authorities in drafting the bill, the primary focus was on trying to identify means by which we could deal with unmet need. That is why the bill was drafted to provide local authorities with additional scope to look at providing services themselves and franchising as an option to address areas in which there is unmet need. The bill was drafted specifically to give local authorities the ability to address an issue that, as they highlighted, they needed powers to address.

Colin Smyth

Since then, with the possible exception of the evidence from the private bus operators, all the evidence that the committee has received—including pretty much unanimous evidence from the local authorities—is that the provision to address unmet need does not go far enough. Local authorities would like that provision to be removed and would like the power to fully run bus services in their areas. Given the evidence that the committee has received and, I am sure, the clear evidence that the Government has received since the bill was published, will you consider dropping the unmet need provision and allow local authorities to run bus companies?

Michael Matheson

It is not so much about dropping that provision; it may be about adding to it. My mind is not closed to the possibility of extending the current provisions in the bill to allow local authorities or local transport authorities to consider providing services. I am aware of the evidence on the matter that the committee has received from some local authorities, and my mind is open to the possibility of extending the provisions in the bill to give local authorities greater scope to look at running bus services in their areas.

Colin Smyth

I have also come across concerns about the process for developing and approving local service franchises in the evidence to the committee from local authorities and others. The suggestion has been made that it presents a significant barrier to the use of that power. Are you satisfied that the processes are streamlined enough and that they will be fully utilised by local authorities and bus companies?

Michael Matheson

Yes, I am. We should not underestimate the decision of a local authority or a local transport authority to intervene in the bus market through the use of a franchise. That is a significant intervention, and it is important that, when an LTA or a local authority chooses to go down that particular route, it has gone through a clear process to assess whether that is necessary and has the evidence to justify the provision of a service on its own or through a franchise. It must also understand the impact that that will have. The process that has been put in place will help to ensure that that is the case. The independent panel that we have introduced will ensure that there is an independent decision on the matter and will check that the local authority has gone through the process thoroughly and in detail. That will allow the panel to make its own recommendation.

I am confident that we have struck the right balance. The provision is not about trying to prevent a local authority or a local transport authority from doing that; it is about ensuring that there is a robust mechanism in place for an assessment to be conducted to determine whether that is the right intervention.

Colin Smyth

Does the bill go far enough? Is it a missed opportunity to follow the type of regulation that there is in, for example, Transport for London, which really regulates the bus services? Should we give that type of power to transport agencies and local authorities to really regulate services?

Michael Matheson

Are you talking about giving individual LTAs and local authorities the ability to regulate bus services in their own areas?

Colin Smyth

Yes—absolutely.

Michael Matheson

Given the nature of the current deregulated system, the challenges in trying to do that would be significant. Many local authorities would have real difficulties in managing that process effectively, and I do not think that that is an appropriate provision to put in the bill. That is why there is no such provision in it.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Surely one of the main reasons why there are unmet needs for bus services is that those services have proved to be unprofitable and no private company would run them because it would lose money, yet you are expecting local authorities to pick up some of the routes. There might be need, but if a route will be unprofitable for ever and a day, how would the local authority fund it?

Michael Matheson

Local authorities do some of that presently—they spend more than £50 million a year from funding that they get through the Scottish Government for socially required transport services. If the communities in question did not have access to public transport in the form of a bus service, they would have no public transport provision.

In my constituency, the local authority chooses to subsidise particular bus routes that it knows are not commercially viable but which are socially necessary. That approach will continue, particularly in our rural communities where such bus routes might be the only link for people who do not have access to a car or any other form of transport.

Under the bill, through the bus service improvement partnerships, local authorities will be able to use new mechanisms that will help to create a system that is much more focused on the local authority, the LTA and the bus service operators working in partnership to make sure that they get the balance right.

Peter Chapman

I accept that subsidies are available but, as with everything else, the pot is limited. I can imagine bus routes in north-east Aberdeenshire that would be welcome, but Aberdeenshire Council cannot fund them.

Michael Matheson

Is it your view that no socially required bus services should be supported by local authorities?

Peter Chapman

Absolutely not. My point is that money is tight. Over the years, local authorities have had their budgets cut. Local authorities have ceased to run bus routes simply because they cannot afford to carry on doing it. My point is the opposite: there needs to be more money for that.

Michael Matheson

If the United Kingdom Government keeps on cutting our budget, there is only so much more that we can pass on, which obviously has an impact on local authority budgets.

As you correctly say, the pot is limited. We try our very best to support local authorities, where we can, but I am certainly not of the view that we should start simply writing off socially required bus services, particularly in rural communities. I know that some of our local authorities work very hard to sustain services where they can.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Good morning. Welcome to your post, cabinet secretary.

A number of local authorities that have given us evidence have said that they are unlikely to use the bus-related powers in the bill because of financial constraints. They are wondering where the money will come from. Only this week, we received a letter from Strathclyde partnership for transport on that issue.

A number of areas in Scotland, including the north-east, have community bus transport. You might recall that, at one point, the Scottish Government had a fund to help community groups buy buses for their own transport use. How do you see existing—and perhaps future—community transport feeding into the issue of bus routes that are not commercially viable but are needed by communities?

Michael Matheson

There is no specific provision in the bill for the community transport to which you refer. One purpose of the bus service improvement partnerships is to enable local authorities to look at what is necessary in their area and to work with the bus service providers to improve bus services. That might include looking at what is available in the form of community transport in their area and at how they can help to improve the delivery of bus services.

As partnerships between the bus operators and local authorities, BSIPs will operate differently from how the existing system operates. When local authorities carry out an assessment and work to put a plan in place, I would expect them to look at what community transport is available in the area so that they can decide how the plan should be developed and consulted on in the local community.

Although there is no specific provision on community transport, the bus service improvement partnerships provide a framework that will allow community transport to be taken into account when provision for an area is considered.

Maureen Watt

If necessary, will you amend the bill to ensure that community transport groups are not excluded or forgotten about?

Michael Matheson

I do not know whether the bill needs to be amended in that respect. When a bus service improvement partnership is undertaken, the LTA or the local authority will need to develop a plan, which will be informed by an assessment of bus patronage, services and so on in the area. That will include looking at what community transport is available. A plan will then be developed to address the unmet need in an area or to make improvements to services.

Community transport provision would be considered as part of the planning and assessment process that an LTA or a local authority would undertake. However, I am more than happy to take away the idea that it should be made explicit, in the bill or in secondary legislation, that consideration of community transport should form part of that assessment.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

To follow on from John Finnie’s opening question, bus patronage is declining because buses do not go from where people are to where they need to be, when they want to use them or at the required frequency. Unless there are substantive changes to the way in which services operate, there will be no huge difference in bus patronage.

I appreciate that low-emission zones might decrease traffic levels in cities, which might make journey times shorter. I also appreciate that there are provisions in the bill on smart ticketing that might—or might not—make things easier and changes to the franchise model for local authorities that might mean that some of them run services. However, I cannot see any tangible or direct measures in the bill that give me any confidence that bus patronage will increase or at least stop declining as a result. Can you give me some examples?

Michael Matheson

It is wrong to suggest that journey times are the sole reason for the decline in bus patronage. Bus patronage has been declining since the 1960s for a whole variety of reasons. In places such as Glasgow and west central Scotland, that decline has been much more marked. There is evidence to suggest that that is because car ownership has increased during that time. Bus patronage for journeys into town centres has declined because the way in which people use town centres has changed, particularly in recent years with the growth in online retail, which has had an impact on town centres in a variety of ways.

There has been a variety of different impacts on bus patronage. However, I have no doubt that there are measures that we can take to improve reliability on journey times for people who use the bus. Jamie Greene made the point that bus patronage declines when the bus does not get someone to where they want to go at the right time. Although that can have an impact, it is not the only reason for the decline—the issues are much more complex than that. If there are things that we can do to improve services or to provide greater reliability on journey times, the bus might become a more attractive option.

For example, the use of LEZs to control which vehicles can enter certain areas, such as our town centres, allows us to address, in part, some of the congestion issues. It can also address issues related to bus journey times, because it reduces congestion, which allows the buses to have shorter and more reliable journey times. The bus service improvement partnership model is much broader and more flexible than the current quality partnership arrangements. A BSIP plan involves consultation and is focused not just on infrastructure, but on a range of different things that can be done, such as bus prioritisation, frequency and fares. If that is used in partnership with LEZs, it can give local authorities much more scope to take forward practical measures in terms of policy and infrastructure that can help to improve journey times and reliability.

It is not that there is one thing that we can do; there is a combination of different things that we can do to address these matters, including the patronage issues that the bus industry has been facing over a considerable number of years.

The Convener

I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but I am going to get into trouble with the rest of the committee if they are unable to ask questions because you are giving long answers. Please keep your answers as short as possible so that I do not lose the rest of the committee. I ask you to keep your answers focused—rather like short journey times on buses, everyone likes it when they get to their destination more quickly.

Michael Matheson

I will try my best. I hope that I have given Mr Greene an insight into how the use of several elements in the bill can address the issue that he is concerned about.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

I will ask a question that needs a yes or no answer. Some people say that patronage is falling because we cannot rely on getting a bus. Some people say that we are only tinkering with bus transport. What do you say to the idea of taking buses back under public control, perhaps one area at a time over a period of years? What do you say—yes or no?

Michael Matheson

Yes or no to what?

Richard Lyle

To taking bus transport back under public control.

Michael Matheson

The provisions in the bill give scope for local authorities to take forward measures in their areas if they see that there is an issue of unmet need.

Richard Lyle

Only if the operators allow them to do so.

Michael Matheson

What I said earlier was that, if there is a view, as you have heard from some local authorities, that they want greater powers to be able to run their own services, I am open to looking at the possibility of doing that.

Richard Lyle

But they will say that they have no money.

Michael Matheson

We make money available to local authorities on a block grant basis, and they can decide how they allocate that resource to different areas.

Richard Lyle

So the answer is neither a yes nor a no.

The Convener

We are definitely parking that one there.

Stewart Stevenson

We have had some preliminary discussion about bus service improvement partnerships. Pages 12 to 29 of the bill—18 pages—cover the issue. They replace 18 pages in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 that cover statutory bus partnerships and voluntary bus partnerships. Pages 15 to 24 of the explanatory notes purport to explain the difference between the 2001 act and what is now proposed. I confess that, despite having read those pages several times, I can find no material difference. Cabinet secretary, can you give me three sentences that identify the material differences? If the answer is as long as the provisions that are in the bill, a written answer might be preferable. Would that be fine, convener?

The Convener

Absolutely.

Michael Matheson

It might be that the explanation is as long as the provisions that are in the bill, so it might be helpful if I wrote to the committee to set out the matter in more detail.

Stewart Stevenson

I am specifically interested in the differences between the previous provisions and the new ones. That is what I am looking for.

Michael Matheson

There are a couple of different and specific measures that are available in bus service improvement partnerships that are not available in QPs.

The Convener

The committee has carried out various visits. In Glasgow, we talked to SPT about how buses work in that area. One of the reasons that we were given for the decline in bus use was journey times. This morning, you have consistently said that LEZs will reduce journey times. The committee has been given evidence to the effect that journey times will be improved by bus lanes and the use of restricted parking along streets to allow buses to move freely and on time. Do you believe that bus lanes would help more than LEZs, or do you think that they are not as important as LEZs when it comes to getting buses moving?

Michael Matheson

I think that both can help.

The Convener

So where in the legislation are we providing for more bus lanes?

Michael Matheson

The provisions in the bill concern the creation of the legal provisions for LEZs. Local authorities can introduce bus lanes at the present moment if they choose to do so.

The Convener

The issue that we heard about is that local councillors sometimes object to putting in bus lanes because getting them past the residents in their wards is difficult. However, in the bigger scheme of things, they are beneficial to the movement of buses. Perhaps we will leave it there.

Stewart Stevenson has questions on the next issues.

Stewart Stevenson

The current landscape in smart cards is quite complex. I have, separate from my main wallet, a special wallet to hold all my travel-related cards, including my ITSO standard cards for bus and for rail, my senior rail card—it is dumb; there is nothing technological about it—and payment cards.

The Convener

The cabinet secretary will be pleased to know that Stewart Stevenson has lost one card since the previous evidence session. [Laughter.]

Stewart Stevenson

Indeed, convener—and I would like to lose three more to get down to one card. The ITSO standard is already widely used. Is it the way forward? Although I would readily do so, it would not be useful to get too much into the technology.

Secondly, is the national smart ticketing advisory board how we will get to our destination? How will the bill help us to achieve a comparatively simple environment for the customer such as London has?

Michael Matheson

Scotland’s challenge, because there is such a wide range of transport service providers, is to introduce a smart ticketing system that is interoperable between different modes of transport and different operators. That challenge is significant, and despite the fact that some operators already have smart ticketing arrangements, they are not necessarily interoperable.

The bill creates powers that would allow us to specify the national standards for smart ticketing systems that would be introduced by transport providers. The standards will be based on guidance from the national smart ticketing advisory board, which we are putting into statute. It will be responsible for setting technical standards to ensure that a smart ticketing system that is introduced by an operator will be interoperable with those of other service providers. The board will advise ministers, who will have the powers, along with local authorities, to mandate the standards as a requirement for service providers. Interoperability is key because of the complexity of the range of organisations that deliver our transport provision.

Stewart Stevenson

However, cabinet secretary, London is moving to a simple situation in which, by using the same payment card across the different modes in London, people will not need any special transport cards to get the best deal and to get through ticketing. I understand that that is because Transport for London gets all the financial transactions; therefore, before presenting them to the bank, it can deal with them and collate them across modes.

Are we talking to financial providers to see what scope we have for that, in order to make sure that that is our approach? Until we take that approach, we will not get the benefits. London is moving away from the Oyster card because it is not needed any more. It sounds as though, a decade later, we are moving towards reinvention of the Oyster card—to a scallop card, or whatever we might choose to call it.

Michael Matheson

You are right to say that London is moving away from the Oyster card, but the bill is not about creating a new national Oyster card. It is about ensuring that the smart ticketing arrangements that travel providers have are interoperable and can be used by individuals to go from rail to ferry to bus, with greater connectivity among those options.

Stewart Stevenson

Forgive me, cabinet secretary—I will make this the last question. Given that integration in London seems to work most effectively by integrating payments, is the Government and will the committee be talking to payment providers about the scope for something similar, if not identical?

Michael Matheson

Stewart Stevenson is asking me to pre-empt, to a degree, the work of the advisory board. That is exactly the type of area that I expect the advisory board to explore. Before it sets the national standards, it should look at the key principles that will drive the national stance that we want to set. That will give us the power to ensure that standards are being applied by operators across the country.

Stewart Stevenson

So the matter is on the agenda. Thank you.

Richard Lyle

I was in London with my family a few months ago and I went on a tube, a bus, the Emirates Air Line zipline—that was interesting—the Docklands light railway, because we stayed in the east end, and a boat. We did all that through smart ticketing and the price was capped. We used several modes throughout the day.

Several respondents, including the get Glasgow moving campaign, argue that smart ticketing alone is not enough, and that there should be per day price caps across all public transport in a city region. As I said, that happens in London, and is enabled by smart ticketing. What is your response to that suggestion? Am I correct in saying that you gave £1 million to promote smart ticketing last week? I saw that in a paper, or on Twitter or whatever.

Michael Matheson

I do not know where you saw that, but you are correct. Part of that funding is to support smaller transport providers to invest in the technology that is necessary to support smart ticketing.

Smart ticketing is not the magic answer to resolve all the issues, but it is an important element. The interoperability that Richard Lyle experienced in London is where we want to get to—greater interoperability among service providers.

There are no provisions in the bill to cap fares. However, there are provisions in the bus service improvement partnership that allow local authorities and local transport authorities that are looking to introduce smart ticketing to deal with issues around fares. Interoperability is key to ensuring that we get more effective smart ticketing options.

Richard Lyle

Why do Scottish ministers need a power to direct local authorities to establish a smart ticketing scheme?

Michael Matheson

If, for example, when you were in London, one of the operators in an area decided that it did not want to participate and wanted to go off and do its own thing, the type of interoperability that you experienced would not be possible.

The power is there to ensure that should a service provider or local authority decide that it is not going to participate—perhaps in a city region such as the Glasgow region—we are able to give direction, on the basis of advice from the advisory board, about what action should be taken to introduce a smart ticketing method that is interoperable with the rest of the system.

Jamie Greene

Before I move on to my question, I will follow on from Richard Lyle’s questions. Local authorities that are watching today’s meeting will perhaps be feeling a little bit unclear about where they stand. We have heard lots of evidence from local authorities, all of which have—understandably—different views. Some are concerned about the administrative burdens of administering multi-operator ticketing schemes, and others are completely opposed to the idea that the Government should have the power to establish such schemes in local authority areas. There are mixed views.

Is it the case that all the bill will do is give Government the power to ensure that, if such schemes are introduced, they all follow the same standard, or will the bill introduce a power that means that all local authorities will have to sign up to the scheme? That is a bit unclear at the moment.

Michael Matheson

The purpose of the national advisory board is to set the national standards. Smart ticketing options that service providers purchase will have to comply with those standards in order to ensure that they are interoperable with other systems. Where a local authority does not have smart ticketing in place, it is about working with transport providers to get them moving in that direction.

The funding that Richard Lyle referred to is to support smaller companies to invest in smart ticketing options to help them to deliver their own services. It is not about imposing smart ticketing for the sake of it; it is about trying to create the necessary national standards. Once those are set, if they are not used by local authorities as they should be in delivery of services, there is a power to mandate them to do that.

Jamie Greene

So, it is clear that the bill includes a power that means that, if local authorities choose not to go down the smart ticketing route in their areas, you can force them to do so. Is that correct?

Michael Matheson

I would be surprised if any local authority in Scotland does not want a smart ticketing option. The bill is about making sure that standards will be applied in the smart ticketing options that operate in an area so that they are interoperable with those in other parts of the country.

Jamie Greene

Standards are technical and behind the scenes, and relate to the technology that delivers interoperability, and which allows for transaction payments and operators to speak together through a mutual ticketing system. That is the back end. What might be confusing to folk is the front end. North Ayrshire might have one type of scheme and Inverclyde might have another. Many services work across authority areas, and not every authority is in a regional transport partnership.

That leads me to ask why the Government is choosing to do things that way. We are leaving it either to individual operators to develop their own schemes, as some including ScotRail and Stagecoach are doing, or to local authorities. All we are asking them to do is follow national standards, but they can still implement any scheme they wish. That will be done with varying degrees of success.

Why is the Government not taking the lead, as has happened in other countries? Other countries have said that they appreciate that it is not going to be easy and there are issues in having multiple operators that do not always talk to each other. If we really wanted to, we could do this nationally. There are companies that could help the Government to do that. Why has the Government taken this approach? There is no appetite in Government for a national scheme and for the roll-out process to be top down.

Michael Matheson

That is because we do not want to take a top-down approach. We want to take an approach that recognises the progress that some operators have already made in smart ticketing options. We want to ensure that systems are interoperable across areas, so that when a person goes from Ayrshire to Glasgow, which is an SPT area, the systems are interoperable, such that there is a through ticket from one bus operator to the next. People should also be able to get through tickets to use a train or a ferry.

We are trying to ensure that the standards that will be applied by every service provider in the country are interoperable—that they are of a standard that allows people to get the through ticket that they require across different modes of transport. That is not available at the moment.

The national advisory board will be responsible for looking at how the standards should be set out and what they should be. That will allow operators to purchase whatever system they want to provide smart ticketing, as long as it meets the national standards and is interoperable with the rest of the country.

Jamie Greene

As things stand, it seems to be unlikely that we will ever get to the stage in Scotland at which a single card—as in Richard Lyle’s example—allows access to buses, trains, ferries and trams, because of the disparate nature of transport. That is unlikely to change soon.

Michael Matheson

In the years ahead, I suspect that the requirement for a card will disappear, because there is an increasing move to contactless services. Anchoring a scheme on a card would be like replicating the Oyster card-type system, which is in decline. We must recognise how technology is moving on, for example through the e-purse approach. Smart ticketing will probably become contactless in the years ahead, so we are trying to create a system that recognises that.

Jamie Greene

My other question is about making sure that we do not leave anyone behind. I appreciate the point about contactless payments, which is one that the committee has not made this morning. That may be the direction of travel, if I may be pardoned the pun, with travel cards becoming less important and people using bank cards or mobile phones.

However, that does not offer through ticketing in its true sense; people might use their cards or make contactless payments for multiple journeys. As you said, there is no capping of the through-ticket price and there is no joined-up approach. Contactless and card payments are just payment methods, as opposed to ticketing methods.

How do we ensure that we leave no one behind? Not everyone is au fait with using Apple Pay or other mobile technologies, and not everyone uses contactless payment. If we have a cashless approach in public transport and, indeed, society, is there a worry that elderly people, for example, will be left behind? How do we ensure that that does not happen?

Michael Matheson

The advisory board will consider the need for a paper option, so that a person who wants to pay by cash and get a ticket will be able to do so. That must always be an option, in any system.

Jamie Greene

Thank you.

The Convener

That brings us to the end of our questions on buses and smart ticketing. We will have a brief pause.

We will move on to low-emission zones and parking. I welcome Stephen Thomson, who is head of air quality; George Henry, who is parking policy manager; and Anne Cairns and Magdalene Boyd, who are solicitors.

Peter Chapman

I want to ask about the effectiveness of low-emission zones. There is analysis that shows that they are limited in what they can do. European Union-sponsored research into the effectiveness of LEZs across northern and central Europe concluded:

“Annual mean PM10 concentrations were reduced by 0 to 7%, with no effects observed in most LEZs.”

There is a similar story nearer to home, in London. Cabinet secretary, are you confident that LEZs will play a significant role in reducing air pollution levels in Scotland?

Michael Matheson

Yes, I am, on the basis of the standards that will be set for LEZs. Glasgow will have the first LEZ in the country, and standards will be set for petrol and diesel vehicles. A lot of work has been done over the years to reduce air pollution, but there remain issues with air quality in some of our town centres. LEZs can address some of those issues by setting standards for vehicle emissions levels to improve air quality in our town centres.

Peter Chapman

Does that mean that you envisage standards being tighter in Scotland than they have been elsewhere in northern Europe, where LEZs have had very little impact? Even in London, where the vast bulk of people obey the rules, there have been minimal reductions in particulate matter.

Michael Matheson

The system that will operate in Scotland will be different from the one in London, which is more like a road charging process, as opposed to the penalty charge that we will have.

It is not about finding the one thing that will improve everything; a variety of things will improve air quality. Low-emission zones can help create the cultural shift that is necessary to address some of these issues. As part of a wider package of measures low-emission zones can play an important part in addressing air pollution and air quality issues in our town centres.

Peter Chapman

You have touched on my second question already. It is proposed that, north of the border, certain classes of vehicle will be banned from entering an LEZ, with a penalty imposed for non-compliance. Many other LEZs, such as the one in London, require a charge to be paid if the entry criteria are not met, so, as you rightly said, there is a difference there. The committee has heard calls for the London approach to be adopted in Scotland. What is your view on that?

Michael Matheson

The London approach is almost a road charging approach. Our view is that we should prevent vehicles of a certain type going into our town centres—if they go in, they will face a fixed penalty as a result. That is a different approach, which in our view is more effective in addressing the level of pollution from vehicles. Standards will be set for the vehicles that are allowed into the zone; that is about helping to improve air quality in our town centres and it is more effective. We are saying that there are certain vehicles that we do not expect to be in our town centre because of the level of pollution that they cause. That is instead of having a charging regime that charges on the basis of the level of pollution that vehicles cause in the area.

Stewart Stevenson

Have the minister and his officials looked at the experience in Beijing, which more or less banned anything that was polluting, including industry—it was not just transport—for the Olympics? In a single year, there was a 46 per cent reduction in attendances at hospitals for asthma and a 23g average rise in live birth weights, which are indicators of the beneficial effects of getting pollutants out of the atmosphere. Rather than simply looking at European examples, have the minister and officials looked at wider examples that might inform policy in this area?

Michael Matheson

I know that officials have looked at a wide range of international experience, but I do not know whether they looked specifically at the temporary provision that was put in place in Beijing. The impact that air quality can have on individuals’ health should not be underestimated. The purpose behind LEZs is to address not just congestion and air quality issues but the associated health issues. In my view, LEZs can do that.

The Convener

We have heard evidence that taking a bus from being Euro 5 compliant to being Euro 6 compliant is difficult and can cost in the region of £25,000. We also heard that if a Euro 5-compliant bus moved briskly along the route in the way that it should, the emissions from the bus would be no worse than those from a Euro 6 bus. There was evidence to suggest that we should be moving buses along routes better, which goes back to a question that I asked earlier about keeping things moving in bus lanes. Do you subscribe to that view, or do you think that bus operators are wrong when they say that the Euro 6 designation for buses will have only a marginal effect and that a better approach would be to keep buses moving quickly in bus lanes?

Michael Matheson

There should be a combination of both. We should have bus engines that are more efficient and emit fewer emissions alongside improved journey times that reduce the time when buses are idling, given the impact that that has on air pollution. It is not about having one or the other but about having a combination of both.

The Convener

There will be a huge cost to the bus operators. When we were in Glasgow, we saw some buses that were still Euro 4 models. It was explained to us that that was written on the back of them so that we could identify immediately whether they were Euro 4, 5 or 6 vehicles. A huge number of buses will be taken out of the loop completely, which might limit bus use in Glasgow even more. Is that the objective?

Michael Matheson

We recognise that there is a cost for bus operators in moving to the Euro 6 standard, which we will set out in further detail along with the regulation. That is why we have provided almost £8 million in the bus emissions abatement programme, which supports bus service providers to introduce retrofit kits on their existing non-Euro 6 buses to reduce emissions to the Euro 6 level.

You will also be aware that there is a grace period within the provisions for low-emission zones, to allow work to take place with the bus industry on the timeline for the transition for the fleet. That gives local authorities the flexibility to work with the providers to give them time to carry out the changes that are needed to the fleet.

There is a combination of measures. There is the money that we are giving the industry and there is the grace period, which gives the industry an opportunity to start taking forward those changes.

The Convener

Is the funding that the Scottish Government is giving to bus companies for retrofit the same as the funding that is being given to bus companies in the rest of the UK, or is there a difference?

Michael Matheson

There is a difference. I will get back to the committee on this in writing, but I believe that there is a difference in our provision that makes it more generous than that in England and Wales.

The Convener

The bus companies will look forward to hearing about that, because that is not what they said in the evidence session that we had with them. We look forward to receiving that letter.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I will build on the convener’s questions, but I want to leave aside buses and think about other vehicles. Cars and other vehicles generally last longer than they used to—my car is nine years old—so some people, particularly those in lower income brackets, do not replace their cars so often and tend to buy second-hand ones. Is there a danger that some people will be disadvantaged by an LEZ if they cannot take their vehicles into the city centre? I am thinking particularly about someone who is starting off as a joiner or electrician and who might have an older vehicle that he really needs for his work.

Michael Matheson

Your vehicle is much more modern than mine, which is 14 years old. The Euro 4 standard for petrol cars roughly takes us to cars that have a 2004 number plate, which is 14 years old, and it is the same for Euro 6, which again would be about a 2004 plate. I recognise that there are potential risks for individuals on lower incomes. However, the standards give people an opportunity in that, if they are considering buying a car, a significant number of cars in the second-hand market comply with the Euro 6 or Euro 4 standards. We have to be alive to that issue, but the regulation that we bring forward will try to accommodate that potential risk.

John Mason

You have mentioned grace periods, which are intended to cover such issues. Frankly, the committee has had conflicting evidence on those periods. Some people think that the periods are far too long and that, if we are serious about air quality, we need to be much more aggressive, whereas others have said that there is a real cost and that we have to give people time and have longer periods, because we do not want to damage business. Will you briefly explain why you have chosen the grace periods that you have come to?

Michael Matheson

The provisions on grace periods give local authorities options. There can be a one-year period through to a four-year period for individuals who are not resident in the LEZ, to allow them to make the necessary transition. Whether a local authority goes for a two, three or four-year grace period is for it to decide, based on local consultation when it is introducing the LEZ. There can also be an extended grace period for those who are residents in the LEZ. The local authority can go as far as a six-year grace period to allow residents to make the transition that may be necessary. We recognise that businesses and local residents need time to make the transition, but the local authority will decide what that is.

John Mason

There is a heritage bus museum in my constituency, which is worried that it will not be allowed to drive around its old buses. Is there provision for an exemption to be made for that kind of situation, perhaps for a particular day?

Michael Matheson

There is provision for exemptions and they will be dealt with through regulations so that they can be adapted to particular circumstances. There will be an opportunity through the consultation for organisations such as the one in your constituency to highlight the need to provide certain exemptions for particular purposes.

John Mason

Thank you.

The Convener

I will ask you to clarify that so that I understand. My understanding is that the bill states that those vehicles could be driven around only on days of importance that are recognised by local authorities but that if someone has an old heritage car, as many people do, that they want to take for a drive, they will be precluded on a normal day from taking it anywhere near an LEZ. Is that right?

Michael Matheson

We have a qualifying requirement for exemptions that are for a significant day, but we want to look at whether we can extend that. For example, a funeral car or a wedding vehicle could require an exemption for its purposes. I want to look at whether the bill is framed in a way that gives us the flexibility that is required in certain circumstances. However, the idea is that the suspension of an LEZ for a particular period would have to be linked to an event of national importance. For example, a national sporting event could be taking place in a town centre and the council might want to suspend the LEZ because vehicles would be brought in to support that event. However, there are also exemptions for individual vehicles for particular purposes while the LEZ is still operating.

The Convener

The concern that has been raised with me—you will know from my entry in the register of interests that I have a farming interest—is about people coming into cities from the countryside in their agricultural-type pick-ups. They will not necessarily change those vehicles every 10 years, so they will be banned from coming into places such as Glasgow if the required standard is Euro 6. Anything that was built prior to 2014 will not be able to get into the city. That is a real issue for some people who live in the countryside. Do you think that that is right?

Michael Matheson

For diesel, it would be 2004.

The Convener

It is 2014. Any vehicle built before 2014 is Euro 5, not Euro 6.

Michael Matheson

They would face a penalty if they were using a vehicle within the LEZ area that was over that limit.

The Convener

That is quite hard on a lot of people who probably rely on those vehicles for their normal work process, because they are not going to change them every 10 years. Would it be possible to reflect on that?

Michael Matheson

There is no need to do so at present, because there will be a consultation on the regulations that will deal with those matters. Those bodies that have an interest in making representations on those issues will be able to engage with the regulation-making process.

Jamie Greene

I would like you to comment on two things specifically. The first is displacement, which there are concerns about. Is it the case that businesses, including smaller bus companies, will simply put all their modern vehicles into the LEZs and that peripheral areas outside the LEZs will suffer from the use of older vehicles? Secondly, the cost of upgrading to Euro 6 vehicles is going to be quite substantial for bus companies. For example, First Glasgow said that that would cost more than £100 million, McGill’s has just ordered 26 new buses and so on. Will any of those costs be passed on to passengers?

Michael Matheson

On your first question, very often the buses that will be coming into LEZs will be coming from suburban areas, so they will be coming into the town centre and probably passing through it. There will probably be some buses that do not do that, but many buses will come through the town centre and go elsewhere. In that sense, the bus companies will therefore have to comply for all those buses. However, I would not dispute that there is also the possibility that companies will move their fleet and displace some buses that they can no longer use in town centres that have an LEZ in place and use them elsewhere. However, by and large, most buses that I have used go into the town centre and then go somewhere else from there.

On the question of costs being passed on, part of the idea behind the grace period and the retrofit abatement programme that we are supporting for the bus industry is to support companies to meet some of those costs. However, the grace period is also about helping companies to absorb some of the natural turnover that they would have in their fleet anyway in renewing their buses so that they can upgrade them to the standard when they purchase them. When I was in Alexander Dennis’s premises last week, Lothian Buses was doing that and I know that some other bus operators are already doing the same. Some of them will therefore manage the situation as part of the turnover of their fleet to ensure that they comply with the LEZs.

Jamie Greene

There would be no cost to passengers.

Michael Matheson

It would be down to the company to decide how it chooses to meet the costs. Bus companies will have a programme for how they want to turn over their fleet, and they will manage that as part of the overall cost of running their business. I have not seen any evidence that costs will be driven up purely because of the need to purchase buses to meet the requirements of LEZs.

Maureen Watt

We have talked a lot about grace periods. Will there not be a time when LEZs become redundant because we will all have low-emission vehicles or electric cars and, because of climate change legislation, there will be a lot more active travel in city centres? Do you see a situation where, for example, 20 years hence, there will be no need for LEZs?

Michael Matheson

That may be the case, but LEZs have an important part to play now in creating some of that culture shift and transition. It could be that LEZs are required for the next 10, 15 or 20 years, and after that they are no longer necessary.

Peter Chapman

We understand that local authorities will have some flexibility in how they introduce LEZs. We have heard concerns from fleet operators in particular that different rules applying to different LEZs could make it very confusing for drivers and difficult for fleet operators to plan their routes. What reassurance can you offer to operators that those problems are being thought about and that there is a way forward?

Michael Matheson

You raise an important issue. The objective is that, by 2020, our four main cities—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen—will have in place LEZs. I want us to be in a position where a van that complies with the LEZ in Glasgow would, if it went to Dundee, comply with the LEZ there, too.

We will deal with that through regulations, so that there is a consistent approach across the country on the standards that are set for LEZs. I know that there were questions about whether that provision should be in the bill. Putting those matters in regulations will allow us to change and adapt the regulations as circumstances change. For example, as engines develop, we could make a change—with due parliamentary scrutiny—without having to resort to changing the act.

I fully recognise your point, and we will be seeking to address that through the associated regulations.

John Finnie

I had planned to ask about the financial memorandum, which was, in part, touched on earlier. People have talked about the inconvenience, the mechanics, grace periods and the costs but, so far, no one has mentioned the number of deaths that are directly attributable to poor air quality.

In the UK, the Royal College of Physicians says—this is the figure that is normally cited—that there are 40,000 such deaths. The conservative estimate for Scotland is that, each year, 2,500 lives are lost that are directly attributable to poor air quality. What projection has been made about the outstanding benefits from lives that could be saved as a result of the legislation?

Michael Matheson

I cannot give a specific figure on how many lives LEZs might save. Is that what you are driving it?

John Finnie

Yes.

Michael Matheson

I cannot give you a figure for that.

John Finnie

Is that not peculiar? We talk about the minutiae of all sorts of things. Surely knowing about such benefits is fundamental. Mr Stevenson touched on the matter earlier when he commented on respiratory ailments and the imposition of a temporary ban in Beijing. Could that work be done, please?

Michael Matheson

I am more than happy for us to look at that and see whether we can provide further information. However, I do not believe that modelling has been carried out in that regard.

Stephen Thomson (Scottish Government)

I can add a small bit to that. Health Protection Scotland is meeting today to consider the feasibility of looking at the impact of LEZs—that is, to determine whether it is feasible to measure an impact that is attributable to LEZs, given all the other aspects of air pollution mitigation.

John Finnie

That is reassuring. I hope that the committee can hear back about that.

That takes me back to my earlier point about Government policies coming together. Surely preventative spend—I prefer to think about that in terms of the impact on people rather than on machines—is an important element that should be considered, too. Any information that you can provide on that would be welcome.

Michael Matheson

We will give the committee further information about the work that Health Protection Scotland is doing on that.

The Convener

John, did you also want to ask about the costs?

John Finnie

Indeed. The issue was touched on earlier. The Finance and Constitution Committee has heard criticism to the effect that the financial memorandum significantly understates the costs that are associated with the proposal. What is your response to that? Can you clarify what proportion of the costs relating to LEZs will be met by the Scottish Government and local authorities, respectively?

Michael Matheson

The challenge in trying to give as accurate a figure as possible concerns the fact that LEZs could operate differently in different local authority areas. We have sought to use data that we have from Edinburgh and, I think, Aberdeen, to inform the financial memorandum with regard to the potential costs of introducing LEZs. My view is that the figures that have been provided are as accurate as they can be, but there are some challenges around that because the way in which the LEZ operates in Dundee could be different from the way in which the one in Glasgow operates, and the size of the LEZs could be different as well. Those factors make it difficult for us to be specific about what the final cost might be.

John Finnie

The conservative figure for the number of deaths that are associated with air pollution in Scotland is 2,500 a year, which is 10 times the number of deaths that are associated with road traffic accidents. I understand that the Scottish Government puts a figure on the cost of a life lost in a road traffic accident, and that it is a seven-figure sum. I think that more work could and should be done on the issue of costs in relation to LEZs, and that the costs should be considered in relation to the human cost of air pollution as well as the infrastructure cost.

Michael Matheson

I am happy to take that issue away and think about it.

The Convener

The committee has been told that the cost of establishing the congestion charge in London was extremely high. We heard that the only reason why an LEZ could be superimposed on top was that the cameras had already been paid for through the congestion charge, and that there is no way of doing it in Scotland. There is considerable concern that the cost of establishing LEZs has been underestimated. Would it be possible for you to revert back to the committee on the methodology that you have used in that regard?

Michael Matheson

Yes, I can do that. I am more than happy to provide whatever information we can.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I want to return to the issue of pavement parking and the exceptions to the pavement parking prohibitions. There are 10 subsections in section 47 that give exemptions nationally, and I think that they are very good. However, the committee has taken evidence that has focused on subsection (6), which says that the parking prohibitions do not apply where

“the motor vehicle is, in the course of business ... being loaded from or unloaded to any premises”

and where

“the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading and in any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes.”

That subsection has caused concerns, because it creates a national exemption that allows firms to park on pavements to make deliveries. At the moment, driving and parking on pavements is illegal, but this subsection gives them permission to do it. Further, the evidence that we have received is that the 20-minute rule would be totally unenforceable.

There is an argument that subsection (6) is not needed because the bill allows local authorities to exempt certain streets from the pavement parking prohibition if they decide that the prohibition would cause problems in relation to people’s ability to make deliveries.

I think that an unintentional consequence of subsection (6) is that it creates a national exemption for pavement parking, which sends the wrong signal. The motivation for the bill seems to be to free up our pavements for the benefit of people who are annoyed because they are blocked, such as disabled people, young mums, young dads, carers with prams and so on. However, subsection (6) is a real worry in that regard.

Michael Matheson

I recognise the issue that the member raises and I have received representations on the matter. It is worth pointing out that it remains a criminal offence for an HGV or a lorry to park on a pavement. Notwithstanding what is in the bill, that will remain a criminal offence. We are trying to achieve a balance for those smaller vans that are carrying out a delivery or picking up and require to park on the pavement to do so. They may not obstruct the whole of the pavement, but they may use part of the pavement for a short time in order to carry out the delivery or to pick up the goods where they would not be reasonably able to do that by parking elsewhere.

We are trying to achieve the objective that you set out and improve access for those who have mobility issues or visual issues, those with prams et cetera, in order to take away the potential hazards that they may face, while recognising that there will be instances in which parking on the pavement is the only option that the driver of the vehicle has in order to pick something up or drop it off, and they need time to carry that out.

I am always minded to look to see whether there are ways in which we can improve the bill, but I hope that the committee will recognise that we are trying to strike a balance in a way that delivers what we are trying to achieve but, at the same time, recognises that there may be practical challenges for businesses.

Mike Rumbles

I entirely understand the issue of trying to strike a balance. What I am trying to get across is that, with section 47(6), you are reversing the law. At the moment, the law does not allow people to drive on to the pavement to unload. That is illegal. However, the bill allows that to happen. Given that your motivation is to free up access for all the people that we have discussed, that subsection might be ineffective legislation.

In your responses to other questions, you talked about local authorities and said that you do not want to have a top-down approach. Surely local authorities are best placed to know their roads and where there is a real problem, and you are already giving them the ability to exempt those areas. Will you look at section 47(6) at stage 2? I would prefer that the Government looked at the matter again at stage 2.

Michael Matheson

I am more than happy to look at it again to see whether we have got the balance right and, if there are potential unintended consequences as the member said, whether we can address them. Let me take that away and have a look at it, and if there is a way in which we can address some of those concerns or possibly provide greater clarity, I will be more than happy to do that.

Mike Rumbles

That is great. I have another quick question on a subject that was raised by witnesses. Do the provisions that prohibit parking on pavements include cycleways?

Michael Matheson

I ask George Henry to cover that.

George Henry (Scottish Government)

Do you mean a cycle lane on the carriageway, Mr Rumbles?

Mike Rumbles

Yes—a cycle lane.

George Henry

There are shared spaces with cycle tracks and footways, which is why I wanted to clarify that.

Local authorities already have powers to make cycle lanes mandatory and they can promote a traffic regulation order, which will mean that people cannot stop or park in a cycle lane. It depends on how local authorities wish to take that forward. Many install advisory lanes. Cycle lanes as such are not covered in the bill as it stands.

John Mason

On a slightly wider issue to do with parking on pavements, I have a considerable number of streets in my constituency where the road is relatively narrow and the pavement is relatively wide. What I consider to be considerate drivers—I do it myself—put two wheels on the pavement, which allows plenty of room for people to pass on the pavement but keeps the road clear for buses, bin lorries and larger vehicles. I have a slight problem with the idea of a total ban. I suspect that councils will find exempting streets to involve too much hassle and cost, so they will not do it. I wonder whether an unintended consequence might be that problems will be created in some places where it would be perfectly reasonable for drivers to put two wheels on the pavement to prevent blockages on the road.

Michael Matheson

The intention of the bill is not to have a blanket ban; it allows for exceptions in some areas, perhaps where there are narrow roads with wide pedestrian ways. There is scope in the bill for local authorities to identify areas and apply an exemption, as long as the pedestrian pathway is at least 1.5m wide. It will be for individual local authorities to identify the areas in their authorities where that would be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.

John Mason

Would it not be simpler and cheaper, both in relation to the bill and for local authorities, simply to say that, assuming a pavement is more than 1.5m wide, someone parking must leave at least 1.5m clear and if the pavement is less than 1m, the whole pavement must be clear? Would that not make for simpler legislation? The councils would not have any costs and would just have to enforce it as they do other things.

Michael Matheson

As it stands, the bill will provide for an exemption that local authorities can apply, based on local need and circumstances.

John Mason

There will be a cost to that, will there not?

Michael Matheson

Yes, but, if we were to flip it round and make local authorities apply the rule with no exemptions, there would also be a cost.

John Mason

If the bill specified 1.5m, there would be no cost.

Michael Matheson

We can look to see whether it would be better to make that clear in the bill or through the regulation or guidance that accompanies the bill. I am not entirely sure why it would need to be on the face of the bill.

Jamie Greene

I want to follow on that interesting line of questioning. I have some sympathy with the cabinet secretary’s view on temporary exclusions. It is imperative that we let businesses go about their normal business, but that we continue to implement the policy intentions of the bill.

On the issue of parking, there is a low level of understanding of what is coming down the road, in the sense that, if the provision is introduced as planned, there will be a blanket ban on two-wheel pavement parking. When you go round constituencies and regions, you realise how much such parking takes place. However, there is absolutely nothing in the bill that will help local authorities to deal with those traffic issues. The questions that I am being asked are, “Where will people park?” and, “Where can we park, when there is nowhere else to park?”

There is nothing in the bill to offer assistance to local authorities other than to apply for exemptions under rules that have been dictated to them nationally. I do not see that the bill provides any long-term solution to the problem.

Michael Matheson

We have engaged with local authorities to try to address some of those issues. There was a meeting on Monday with local authorities on the management of some of those issues and how that can be addressed through the guidance that accompanies the bill. It will be a greater challenge for some local authorities than for others. I am thinking of Glasgow and Edinburgh in particular, where there are tenements, some streets are narrower and the pavements are more limited—there might be four or five-storey tenements and everyone in the block might have a car. In some areas there will be specific challenges.

Part of the work that we are doing with local authorities is to consider how to ensure that we have the necessary guidance in place for them, so that they know where to apply exemptions, where that is appropriate. At the same time, we want to make it very clear that, where the provision can be applied, the standard rule should now be that people are not able to park on the pavement.

Jamie Greene

As you say, there are tenements with six or more cars for a single block and only two spaces outside them, but those cars are not going to disappear when the bill comes into force. If no other parking provision is made available and, more importantly, there is no additional funding to support local authorities—I am not asking that central Government start building car parks everywhere—there is a real issue at stake: the cars are not disappearing, but they will have nowhere to go. I am not convinced that we are addressing the root cause of the problem.

Michael Matheson

Part of the idea is to provide local authorities with the powers to be able to take such things into account in areas where they want to apply exemptions. Those are the types of issues that they will have to consider when making an assessment to determine whether to apply an exemption in a particular area.

Richard Lyle

To follow on from Jamie Greene’s point, there has to be a commonsense approach to this. I can think of some interesting roads in Glasgow and other areas where, if both sides of the road are filled with cars and the cars are not parked on the pavement—if they are parked as they will be legally required to park when the bill comes in—fire engines or other emergency services may not be able to get through. However, I will park that one.

Michael Matheson

Pardon the pun.

The Convener

I think we got it, Richard.

Richard Lyle

Good—I hoped you had.

I can think of quite a number of towns and cities, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, where there are pedestrian areas with shops. What happens if, at 9 o’clock in the morning when people are out shopping and walking in those areas, a van comes along to deliver to a particular shop that it needs to access from the front because there is no back entrance?

I agree with Mike Rumbles, but I want to explore the issue from an alternative viewpoint. What reassurance can you offer delivery firms and businesses that the prohibition of pavement parking and double parking will not unduly affect their operations? Will the parking standards document that is currently under development offer any clarity on that issue? Many companies will ask how they can deliver to shops that are in the middle of Glasgow’s shopping area.

Michael Matheson

We will engage with stakeholders, including those in the industry who have a view about what the parking standards should be, as part of the consultation around the document. The document will give clarity on what the standards will be.

On your first point, I echo what I said to Mike Rumbles. We are trying to strike a balance between freeing up access on paths and removing obstructions, while at the same time recognising that there will be individuals who are just going about their legitimate business.

It is not just about deliveries. We should not lose sight of the fact that there are health and safety challenges for the folk who carry out deliveries. The vehicle will have to be parked much further away, so we need to think about the risk to them as well. We are trying to strike a balance. If there are ways in which we can address some of the concerns around that, I am open to looking at them—we will take them away to see whether there are other things that we can do. We have to try to achieve a balance.

Colin Smyth

I want to touch on enforcement. My understanding of the bill is that the local authority will have the power to take enforcement action where there has been a contravention of the prohibition of pavement parking and double parking. Does that mean that, where parking has not been decriminalised, a council enforcement officer will be able to put a parking ticket on a car that is parked on the pavement, but not able to put a parking ticket on the car next to it that is parked on double yellow lines?

Michael Matheson

If parking has not been decriminalised in the area, it would be a matter for the police to enforce. I will let George Henry talk you through how that will operate.

George Henry

At the moment, that is how it stands. However, the bill will provide powers for all local authorities to carry out enforcement. We are continuing to work with stakeholders to discuss enforcement so that we get consistency right across the country. Some local authorities do not have decriminalised parking enforcement; they have off-street car parks with parking attendants, so they may use them. We are looking at whether local authorities can share services with neighbouring authorities. Work on that is on-going as we speak.

Colin Smyth

Just to be clear, where parking is not decriminalised, the bill seems to imply that a local authority officer will be able to put a parking ticket on a car that is parked on a pavement because it specifically mentions that scenario. However, the officer cannot put a parking ticket on the car next to it that is parked on double yellow lines unless the authority goes through the whole decriminalisation process.

George Henry

That is correct, as it stands.

Colin Smyth

Are we not missing a trick, then? Why are we not using the bill to completely decriminalise parking? Since Police Scotland scrapped traffic wardens—a short-sighted decision, in my view—more and more local authorities have moved towards decriminalisation. However, the process is lengthy, expensive and bureaucratic. It involves bringing Scottish statutory instruments for every individual local authority before this committee and the Parliament.

Should we not be using the bill to simplify that process at the very least? We could have a single line in the bill that says that if a local authority wants to decriminalise, it can do so immediately instead of having to go through the current very bureaucratic process. Alternatively, should we not just completely decriminalise parking? Otherwise there will be a two-tier system under the bill: one tier for pavement parking, and the second for other parking offences that are not decriminalised at the moment.

Michael Matheson

You are right about some of the bureaucracy around the decriminalisation process. I will consider the point that you have raised to see whether we could use the bill to simplify or improve that process. I do not know whether that would be possible, but I am more than happy to look at the issue and to engage with our colleagues in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on whether there is a way in which we can improve the process.

Maureen Watt

I think that the majority of our witnesses supported the proposals on pavement parking and double parking. However, the issue of parking in front of dropped kerbs has also come up. A number of my constituents and I have gone out with the local authority to see what can be done about that, and a petition has been lodged on the matter.

Is it possible to have double yellow lines in front of dropped kerbs? Does the bill need such a provision? We have an increasingly elderly population, and inclusivity and ensuring that everybody can play their full part in society will not happen if inconsiderate people park in front of dropped kerbs.

Michael Matheson

I fully sympathise with that view. I recognise the challenges that people have when individuals park in front of dropped kerbs and the additional risks that that causes. For example, people might have to take an alternative route if they cannot use a dropped kerb to cross the road.

There are technical challenges in defining dropped kerbs, but officials have been working to see whether the bill can provide for greater certainty on that matter. Maybe George Henry can explain the work that we have taken forward on that front.

George Henry

I think that Jamie Greene raised the issue of displacement, and it has been mentioned in relation to LEZs and parking. Domestic driveways have been considered in discussions with stakeholders. The Scottish Government received powers via the Scotland Act 2016 to legislate on parking at dropped kerbs, and we are aware that stakeholders have expressed concerns about dropped kerbs not being covered in the bill.

We have been considering which dropped kerbs should be included, and we are addressing those issues with stakeholders. Basically, the issue is whether it is a non-crossing point. Fundamentally, should there be a national ban so that nobody should park over a dropped kerb that is a non-crossing point? Obviously, the inclusion of domestic driveways would have quite big impacts on the displacement of vehicles. We are discussing such things with stakeholders.

Maureen Watt

It should not be too difficult. Most people know the distinction between a dropped kerb that someone has in front of their driveway so that they can get their car in and one that is near a crossing or a shopping centre. We would expect that most people would not park in front of a dropped kerb. Unfortunately, people are parking in front of them, and that needs to be legislated for.

Michael Matheson

I fully accept that people should understand that, but I am sure that Maureen Watt will recognise that some people do not.

Maureen Watt

There is no legislation to penalise them, is there?

Michael Matheson

There are technical issues in defining dropped kerbs so that there is a black-and-white definition and no grey area. We need to work through those issues so that the definition is quite clear. We are working on that to see how we can take it forward.

The Convener

I have been particularly taken by the argument about parking in front of dropped kerbs. Perhaps as a result of the committee’s consideration, I now look to see where dropped kerbs are. Some of them in Inverness are in loading bays, which are interesting places to have them. It may not be possible to have a blanket rule in place for dropped kerbs, but some might need to be moved. The issue is very important.

We will have another short pause while we allow the witnesses to change over.

We move on to the third part of this evidence-taking session, in which we will consider road works, canals and regional transport partnerships. I welcome Kat Quane, road works policy officer, Joanne Gray, policy manager for regional transport partnerships, Brian Spence, canals policy officer, and Kevin Gibson, solicitor.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

Witnesses have been broadly supportive of the proposed new powers for the Scottish road works commissioner and the new duties and requirements that will be placed on people who carry out road works. However, an issue that has come up in evidence is the power of unannounced entry to premises to investigate road works issues. Is the power proportionate?

Michael Matheson

I believe so, yes, on the basis that the purpose of the inspection is to allow the SRWC to establish the facts in particular circumstances. A warrant for the purposes of making entry will be required, so it is not as though there will be no process of checking whether the inspection is appropriate and required. Very often, inspections take place on live carriageways and in limited conditions. If a contractor is obstructing an inspector’s ability to get access to the information that they require for their inspection, the inspector will be able to consider whether a warrant for access is required.

The power is necessary. I hope that it will not need to be used much. However, given the importance of the SRWC’s role, it is important that the inspectors have the ability to force entry, if necessary.

Gail Ross

What qualifications and standards will inspectors use when they access work sites?

Michael Matheson

Are you asking what qualifications inspectors have?

Gail Ross

Yes.

Michael Matheson

Officials might be able to give you more detail about their qualifications, but I think that the individuals who carry out inspections should have good background knowledge of the industry and an understanding of the inspection standards that they apply during an inspection.

Kat Quane (Scottish Government)

Luckily, there is one standard for operatives and one standard for supervisors for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is the industry standard, to which everyone already works. Whether a person is digging a hole on a site or inspecting the hole—as local authorities do—they will have the standard qualification for an operative or a supervisor from Street Works UK’s training and accreditation group. I would expect an SRWC inspector to have the supervisor’s qualification.

Gail Ross

The committee heard from a witness from Openreach, who expressed concern about the security of Openreach’s infrastructure, given the requirement to share information on the Scottish road works register. Our witness said that whereas in the past the concern was about commercial sensitivities, it is now about data security. What discussions are you having with Openreach and others about that? Will you consider those concerns before stage 2?

Michael Matheson

Of course. It is an issue for consideration. For example, there are security provisions around access to the information on the website, and we would expect those to be updated and to continue to be reinforced. Further security measures might need to be put in place to restrict access to information on the system. I expect the commissioner to keep the situation under review and to consider whether they have to update those security measures and put further measures in place so that only those who are entitled to access the information can access it.

Gail Ross

Does that apply not only to Openreach but to everyone who adds to the infrastructure?

Michael Matheson

Yes. There would be a gatekeeping process around access to the information that is hosted on the commissioner’s website.

Gail Ross

Who would be able to access that information? What reasons would they have to give in order to be able to access it?

Kat Quane

Anyone with a statutory right to dig up the roads, such as the undertakers, the roads authorities and, in certain special cases, the commissioner’s office itself, would be able to access the information, but only for the purposes of ensuring safety when digging up the road.

Gail Ross

Thank you. That is helpful.

During our evidence session with the Scottish road works commissioner, he raised the issue of lane rental charges. Is the Scottish Government minded to pursue that issue in the future?

Michael Matheson

I am conscious of the issue because lane rental charges have been used in England and Wales to address delays with the completion of works and so on. They have proven to be fairly effective in that regard. However, the national system that we have in place in Scotland already works effectively. I do not think that it is necessary to add provision for lane rental charges into the mix, given that the existing provisions work relatively well and fairly efficiently, as can be seen by the fact that delays in Scotland are shorter than those in England and Wales.

Jamie Greene

Does the cabinet secretary understand the frustration that is felt by drivers and businesses when there are successive road works in an area? For example, a street in Dundee was dug up by three different utility companies, with the work extending over a long period of time, which caused havoc to the footfall that businesses there experienced.

From a driver’s point of view, there is nothing worse than seeing road works packing up at 5pm on a Friday and not starting again until Monday morning. That seems bizarre to most people. Is there anything in the bill that will give the Scottish road works commissioner the power to ensure that utility companies do the work as quickly as possible so that we do not see what effectively amounts to a three-day halt to works because it is the weekend, or work stopping in the evening?

Michael Matheson

I not only understand the frustration; I experience it myself. I often come across sites where a company is digging up the road even though it seems as if it has been only a couple of months since another company dug it up.

Local authorities try to bring works together if a number of utility companies indicate that they are planning to carry out work in an area. That should minimise the frustration.

Clearly, the system is not perfect, given the experience of you, me and, I am sure, everyone else. The commissioner’s role includes inspecting the management of that process to see whether there are things that could be done to reduce that type of inconvenience.

With regard to the issue of weekend working, I suspect that that is largely a commercial decision that is made by employers—

Jamie Greene

That is my point. The bill could address that if you wanted it to. You could force utility companies to do work in the shortest time possible rather than leaving it to commercial decisions that are based on the fact that it is expensive to pay people overtime at the weekend.

Michael Matheson

There is provision to do that. Kat Quane can explain that to you.

Kat Quane

The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 makes provision for local authorities to issue a direction under section 125 of the act, which says that road works have to take as short a time as possible. There is an obligation for that to happen anyway, but there is provision for a specific direction. The commissioner’s office will get additional powers to see how local authorities are using that direction. It will absolutely be a level playing field; the commissioner will be able to look at roads authorities as well as utility companies and get information about whether that is happening.

The Convener

We will move on to Richard Lyle.

Stewart Stevenson

Eh?

The Convener

Sorry, Stewart, but Richard is first, then it is you. There is strict rotation and I try to follow it to the best of my ability.

Richard Lyle

I agree with the comments made by the cabinet secretary and Jamie Greene. It is frustrating that certain roads are continually getting dug up and relaid. I will not name it, but there is a road in my constituency that is continually being hammered.

Even though we know that it happens for safety reasons and to ensure that the staff are fine, a lot of car drivers also get annoyed when lanes are coned off for perhaps a quarter or half a mile, with nobody working on them. I agree that we should try to get companies to work together so that they dig up roads and put their utilities in at the same time and ensure that they use that time effectively so that there is minimal delay to motorists. As the cabinet secretary has said, it is very frustrating.

The Convener

I am not sure whether that was a question or a pitch for the cabinet secretary’s job.

Richard Lyle

Do you agree, cabinet secretary?

Michael Matheson

Do I agree with what?

Richard Lyle

Do you agree with what I just said?

Michael Matheson

It depends on what you are asking me, Richard.

The Convener

You can perhaps take that question offline. Richard has made his point.

Stewart Stevenson

I just want to return to the issue of Openreach and its critical infrastructure. I see from the Scottish road works commissioner’s website that there are two bits of road works adjacent to this building, one at the bottom of the Canongate and the other 100m away, where Scotland Gas Networks will have the road up for 21 days starting on 26 November. That information is in the public domain, so I am puzzled about the suggestion that some things will not be made public. Is that because, in legal terms, Openreach’s network is part of critical national infrastructure? Perhaps that has a particular definition under UK security legislation, whereas the gas network does not—although I would have thought that you could do an awful lot more damage knowing where the gas network was than you could intervening on the telephone network.

Kat Quane

That just displays the security. You are looking at the public-facing website, which shows the public what works are planned, and anyone can access that. Openreach is talking about the secure vault system on the Scottish road work register, which you cannot just access through a website, as you need to have been set up and have a password. That information is not accessible to the public.

Stewart Stevenson

I hear what you say, but I do not understand what it means. Can you explain what information I am not seeing? If Openreach were digging up the road in front of the Parliament, would that appear on the map on the website for me to see?

Kat Quane

You would see it.

Stewart Stevenson

So what am I not seeing?

Kat Quane

I will explain. If works are planned, you will see on the website a little road works sign—a 7001 man-at-work sign—that shows roughly what work is planned and when it will happen. Openreach is concerned about there being lines on the map that show exactly where its cables and junction boxes are and where its overhead is—although you can see that without a map, as it is overhead. It is concerned about the map showing where its infrastructure is when no one is digging it up.

Stewart Stevenson

That is fine. It clears up my fog of mystery.

The Convener

One question that is continually raised with me is about road works that are left at weekends, with speed limits on roads even though there is no workforce present and even though things appear to be functioning perfectly well. It is a constant problem; indeed, I could quote examples on the A9 and right across Scotland. Is that a missed opportunity in the bill? Surely we should remove road works or speed reductions at the weekend if no one is working there and there is no need for them, but that is not mentioned in the bill.

Michael Matheson

The bill does not seek to address that. It deals with the Scottish road works commissioner.

The Convener

Yes, but should he not have the power to make instructions on that?

Michael Matheson

Returning to my earlier comments, I would point out the provisions for local authorities to make sure that works are carried out as timeously as possible and in as short a timeframe as possible. They will be able to issue directions if that is not the case. There are no plans to make provision for contractors that undertake road works to ensure that they are removed just for the weekend. I expect road works to be completed as timeously as possible, instead of their being closed off at the weekend and opened back up again on Monday. That simply results in their taking longer to complete. In any case, the bill does not address such issues, and it contains no provision in that respect.

Mike Rumbles

Although the bill has 75 sections and is very comprehensive, only one section deals with canals, and it is about doubling the size of the Scottish Canals board. Are we relying on the Transport Act 1962, which is more than half a century old, to provide the legislation on the canal network? Does the Scottish Government have any plans to legislate on canals? How do we ensure that we keep them open? They are increasingly being used for leisure purposes in Scotland, but we seem to be relying on very old legislation for them. Are there any plans to update the legislation?

Michael Matheson

There are no plans at present to update the legislation, largely because no marked deficiencies have been highlighted to us. Some of the challenges that face our canal infrastructure are not about legislation but about the age of canals and the need to update and upgrade them. As canals go through my constituency, I know that any issues are largely down to infrastructure challenges. If Scottish Canals were to highlight particular deficiencies in or challenges around the existing legislative structure, I would be more than willing to consider what it said, but at present it has not done so.

Mike Rumbles

Is it not the duty of Scottish Canals to keep the canals open and navigable? There have been closures along canals that have recently been renovated—the Union canal, for example.

Michael Matheson

There is a requirement under existing legislation for Scottish Canals to keep canals navigable.

Mike Rumbles

But canals have been closed.

Michael Matheson

We provided Scottish Canals with additional funding to address some bridge structure issues that resulted in canal closures. Scottish Canals tries to programme its infrastructure investment to deal with issues that could result in canal closures, but there will be incidents where Scottish Canals might require additional resource to help it address them. As I have said, we have provided Scottish Canals with additional resources to help with a couple of issues, one of which was in my constituency when the bridge at Bonnybridge failed and had to be repaired. Infrastructure issues will arise, and Scottish Canals will have to address them, because it has a legal requirement to maintain commercial access.

Mike Rumbles

Can you write to the committee to let us know under what legislation Scottish Canals has that requirement? I am not clear about that.

Michael Matheson

We can do that.

The Convener

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Individual members have some questions that they want to ask.

John Mason

I am not a fan of throwing things into bills that have not been consulted on along the way, but the question of littering from vehicles has been raised with me. That is, in one sense, an environmental issue, but it leads to another serious issue, as highlighted by the signs that we often see on the motorway, showing that workers risk their lives picking up litter when vehicles go past at 70mph. Has the Government given any thought to strengthening legislation in that area either in the bill or elsewhere?

Michael Matheson

I am not unsympathetic to that concern and I will consider whether it can be addressed in the bill or through other legislation. There is nothing more frustrating than sitting behind a car and seeing folk just dump rubbish out of a window on to the side of the carriageway. Operatives have to work at the side of roads and motorways in potentially dangerous conditions, just because people cannot take the time to put their rubbish into a bin. I have already decided to consider whether that matter should be addressed in the bill or in another piece of legislation.

John Mason

Thank you.

The Convener

That brings us to the end of our questions on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and the witnesses that he has brought along for the evidence that they have given. We look forward to seeing you again on 5 December to discuss a wider range of issues than the Transport (Scotland) Bill.

I suspend the meeting for five minutes.

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Good morning, everyone. I welcome you to the committee’s 18th meeting in 2019 and ask everyone to make sure that mobile phones are on silent. We have received apologies from the deputy convener, Gail Ross, who is unfortunately not well, and I welcome Pauline McNeill to the meeting.

Agenda item 1 is continued evidence taking on the policy intentions of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill on a proposed workplace parking levy. Two panels will give evidence today, and I welcome the first, which will focus on the levy’s potential impact on employers, employees and workplaces. Alistair Brown is the national director of the Scottish Association of Social Work; Fiona Beale is the head of corporate real estate at Aviva; David Lonsdale is the director of the Scottish Retail Consortium; Colin Smith is the chief executive of the Scottish Wholesale Association; Helen Martin is assistant general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; and David Belsey is assistant secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland.

This is a big panel, and I would like everyone to have the opportunity to contribute. Members will pose questions, which we will ask you to answer. If you occasionally keep your eyes on me, I will not have to signal for the microphone to be cut off because you are going on for too long. I will try to keep you right—if I signal, it means that we are coming to the end of your bit and I would like to give somebody else a chance to come in. If anyone is not coming in enough, I will try to bring them in. You do not need to touch the consoles, as they will be operated for you.

Before we start, I ask for any declarations of interest.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

I receive a small pension from Aviva, which took over a pension that I had.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I have a small investment and insurance vehicle with Aviva.

The Convener

Thank you. We have a series of questions, the first of which will come from John Finnie.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Do any of the panellists have data on the proportion of employees who use on-site workplace car parks?

The Convener

Who would like to start? Does Fiona Beale know how many people use Aviva’s car parking spaces?

Fiona Beale (Aviva)

I am happy to help you with that question. Our two main Scottish hubs, in Pitheavlis, in Perth, and in Bishopbriggs, have 1,200 car parking spaces to service 2,000 staff.

John Finnie

Does anybody else have data?

The Convener

No one else has data.

Colin Smith (Scottish Wholesale Association)

Unfortunately, I do not have specific data about the number of spaces that our members have. The Scottish Wholesale Association represents the wheels of the food and drink industry. Our members have large warehouses in out-of-town locations, which have large car parks that are not necessarily for staff but for customers, because of the nature of the business. Our members collect goods from the wholesalers. I estimate that about 80 per cent of our staff commute by car to their place of work, but that is purely an estimate, because I do not have recorded data. I am happy to survey our members to get that information.

John Finnie

It would be very helpful if you could share that information with the committee. Thank you very much.

The Convener

Alistair Brown, many of your members might need a parking space at work. Is that true of nearly all of them or of just a proportion?

Alistair Brown (Scottish Association of Social Work)

We do not have specific numbers. The vast majority of our members use their own cars. Many of our members in the 32 local authorities work in rural areas and, as you will see from our evidence, many of them use their own cars for their day-to-day work.

The Convener

I was struck by the point in your written evidence that cars are seen as a safe place for people to meet your members.

Alistair Brown

That is correct. People are constantly doing very taxing and emotional work in an increasingly difficult and less-resourced environment. They feel under tremendous pressure and have to respond to things very quickly.

John Finnie

What is your view on the public sector relying on an employee to own a private motor vehicle in order to discharge their duties? Surely, that is a barrier to someone accessing a post in the first place. Should you not be pushing for local authority employers to provide vehicles, perhaps by using a pool system?

Alistair Brown

That is one of the more strategic issues that need to be looked at. In the social work posts that I have held, there has usually been one pool car per team, which has generally been insufficient. In order to carry out statutory roles in relation to child protection and mental health, for example, we need to respond very quickly. Sometimes, we need to go out to a client three or four times in a day—it is not all carefully scheduled.

John Finnie

I understand that. I should perhaps declare that my wife is a former social worker who used a vehicle in that way.

Do you think that the expectation that an employee should provide their employer—a local authority—with a private motor vehicle for public use is a tenable situation into the future?

The Convener

I am happy for you to answer that question, although I think that John Finnie may be going beyond his amendment to the bill. Helen Martin can make a brief comment, and we will then move on to John’s other question.

Helen Martin (Scottish Trades Union Congress)

I agree that the treatment of staff in that regard, particularly in social work, needs to be looked at as a whole. I recommend the fair work convention report on social workers as a good reflection of some of the fair work issues in that sector.

John Finnie

I thank you all for your written evidence. What are your expectations about where the levy may be imposed?

Alistair Brown

We are hearing that it is intended to be imposed in cities and that Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow are actively considering it. However, we say in our evidence that there are difficult issues to balance in respect of the disproportionate effect of pollution on the poor. Also, until all the other structural things are achieved, it is impossible to move ahead and just tax our members a further £500 a year, if VAT is added on.

John Finnie

Sorry, but where did you get that figure from?

Alistair Brown

The figure of £415 is mentioned in the papers, and VAT would be added to that.

John Finnie

No figures have been established yet; the bill is simply an enabling piece of legislation. It would be for local authorities to determine the charge.

Alistair Brown

The Nottingham scheme has been much talked about, and £415 plus VAT was mentioned in relation to that scheme.

John Finnie

Ms Beale, do you envisage the levy being applied in the two areas that you referred to?

Fiona Beale

We do not know—we have no idea. Aviva is supportive of a workplace transport levy if it reduces the number of cars on the road. However, it is important that organisations that are already doing things in that respect receive some sort of recognition. Although we have some workplace car parking, we also support car-share schemes; we have invested about £1.7 million over the past eight years in bringing additional bus access to our sites; we support cycling to work; and we provide loans for season tickets. I am looking for recognition of what organisations are already doing and for exemptions where they are already doing something.

The Convener

That brings us neatly to the next question, which will come from John Mason.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I am most interested in speaking to the witness from Aviva, whose submission I found very helpful. I appreciate your sharing with the committee what you are doing already.

Some areas have good public transport while others do not, which makes a difference to the people there. I presume that the local authority knows whether there is good public transport to your sites, or to anyone else’s, so it would be good if we were to let it decide whether it wanted to introduce the levy. You say that, in Bishopbriggs, you have been encouraging people to use buses and that a bus passes your site every 15 minutes, which strikes me as being a good service. Why is it not appropriate for more of your workers to use the bus?

Fiona Beale

We invest around £150,000 a year in bringing a number of services into our Bishopbriggs site. Many people who work at our operation there live in quite rural areas that are not well served by public transport, and it is important that local authorities give consideration to that. The Nottingham scheme, which has been well publicised, is in a city centre. Our two main sites are on the edges of towns and are not well served by public transport, which is why Aviva has had to supplement the bus service.

John Mason

You said that local authorities should take that into account, which suggests that we should pass the bill and give local authorities the power to make the real decisions. Is that your feeling?

Fiona Beale

Aviva’s view is that organisations that are already supporting cars being removed from the road should receive recognition and that any exemptions and recognitions should be agreed at a national level. As an organisation, we would not want to have to deal with multiple local authorities; we would expect the levy to be set at a national level.

John Mason

Would anyone else like to comment on that area?

Colin Smith

Going back to my original point, I would add that our members are based in out-of-town industrial estates across the country, from as high up as the Highlands and Islands down to Edinburgh, Glasgow and the Borders. Transport links to industrial estates are poor at the best of times. However, our survey found that 92 per cent of our members have workforces who are on shift work. We are a 24/7 business: we are open during the day, but we are also trunking food and drink deliveries across the country in the evenings. Our workforces are reliant on their cars for getting to our out-of-town locations, where public transport tends not to go even during the day and especially not at 10 o’clock at night, when our members are going to work, or at 5 o’clock in the morning, when they are leaving.

That brings me to our other concern, which is the safety of our workforces. Members of staff might go into work at 10 o’clock at night and have to park on the streets of industrial estates because they cannot afford to pay the workplace parking levy. Someone might decide to park on a street that is hundreds of metres away from the safety of their place of work, where there are closed-circuit television, security guards and so on. Therefore, although we would like to see a reduction in car use and our members are already taking a proactive approach to making their businesses more environmentally friendly—by investing in green-fleet technology to improve driver efficiency and encouraging staff to use alternative modes of transport where possible—the fact is that we still do not have transport links to out-of-town industrial estates.

The Convener

If John Mason does not mind, I will bring in another couple of members of the panel.

John Mason

Sure.

The Convener

David Belsey wants to come in. Perhaps Helen Martin and David Lonsdale could do so as well.

David Belsey (Educational Institute of Scotland)

On John Mason’s question, giving local authorities the option of introducing the workplace levy—pushing the problem to them—would create a situation in which thousands of workers could, through no fault of their own, find themselves financially disadvantaged by a flat-rate tax being applied to their workplace that will be transferred to them, as the evidence from Nottingham shows. Many workers—particularly in out-of-town and rural places, and even in some parts of our larger cities—do not have public transport options for getting to work timeously at the beginning of the day. In such scenarios, giving local authorities the responsibility would be problematic.

Helen Martin

We agree. We are not in favour of the levy, primarily because it could fall heavily on low-paid workers and because it does not fit well with other elements of the bill. We are disappointed that, on bus travel, the bill allows local authorities only to be an operator of last resort. While that is the bill’s approach, introducing the levy would combine with difficult public transport issues.

The proposed levy is small and limited. It is likely to place hardship on low-paid workers and is unlikely to raise the money that is needed to invest in and transform public transport arrangements. With the provisions that prevent public ownership, the levy will not achieve what Mr Finnie would like it to achieve. We should not introduce the levy without a much broader strategy, because of the hardship that would be placed on workers.

John Mason

Various points have been made. I absolutely get it that city and rural locations differ. The biggest problem is in the cities, and Glasgow has a fabulous public transport system, so a levy should not be such a problem there. Have any rural local authorities told Mr Smith or Mr Belsey that they plan to introduce a levy? The amendments would give authorities the powers, but rural authorities would probably not use them, whereas city authorities would at least think about using them, which would solve the problem. Surely, Ms Martin, those who take their cars into the centre of Glasgow are not poorer workers but rich directors—are you defending them?

Helen Martin

That is a simplistic argument. A range of workers—particularly shift workers—take their cars to work for a range of reasons. It is not true that public transport in the centre of Glasgow is perfect—far from it. It is perfect at some times of the day: for people who work from 9 to 5 and who are wealthy directors, public transport is quite good, but that is not the case for people who do shift work or who work in hospitality and are turfed out of their workplace at 2 am. We constantly run safe home campaigns for hospitality workers because there is no public transport and they are being attacked on the way home, because their low wages mean that they cannot afford to take a taxi.

John Mason

Do such people take their cars into the city centre at the moment?

Helen Martin

Some people do and some do not. Those who do not are being attacked on the way home, and our concern is that the levy could put more people into that category.

I absolutely appreciate the desire to do something about modal change, but I am not sure that the levy is the tool that will do that of itself.

The Convener

I will bring in David Lonsdale and then somebody who sparked off questions from everybody on the committee.

David Lonsdale (Scottish Retail Consortium)

John Finnie’s policy narrative and amendments are admirably clear. The levy is a tax on premises. As the committee will have gathered from our submission, the retail industry feels that it has faced quite a lot of taxes and costs. Property costs are the second biggest outgoing after employment costs. Anyone who has had the pleasure of having me in front of their committee before to talk about measures such as business rates will know the points that we have made, which are articulated in our submission.

The business rate poundage, or tax rate, has gone up markedly since the start of the decade and is at a 20-year high. Business rates bills for retailers alone went up by £13 million last month. We look at the levy very much through the prism of its being an additional cost on business. The point about whether the levy will be passed on to staff is a good one. The evidence on that is mixed, and I will probably come to it later. However, first and foremost, the levy is a cost to business, and we are already paying business rates on parking spaces. As the committee will have seen from the data on retail sales and shop prices that came out today, this is a tough time for the industry and it is difficult to absorb a lot of those costs.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

Good morning, panel. Many different areas have been covered, but I will focus on just one. We discussed the parking levy with Nottingham City Council last week and pressed the question of what the main purpose of such a levy is. The levy seems to be used primarily to raise funds to improve public transport in that city; the objectives of reducing congestion or improving air quality are secondary. Is there a worry that, if the power is given to all local authorities, they might use it in non-city areas simply as a mechanism for raising money to invest in capital infrastructure projects rather than to tackle congestion in our cities?

The Convener

Helen Martin is nodding furiously.

Helen Martin

That is our concern. It is about the context in which we are amending the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Local authority budgets have been very stretched in recent years. I would go further than what has just been described and say that local authorities will raise the levy to replace money that is currently going on transport in order to free up funds for other areas. I imagine that some local authorities would be tempted to do that because, with the stretch on local government finance, it would be a way of funding essential services. I would have sympathy for a local authority that found itself in that position, but it would be potentially damaging for low-paid workers, who would not see an improvement in their public transport as a result.

David Belsey

I go back to a point that John Mason made earlier. He said that rural local authorities would probably not introduce the levy but, in reality, because it would be a means of raising revenue at a time in which it is generally acknowledged that councils are stretched, they would be tempted to implement it. The levy raises a relatively small amount of money in Nottingham. If a local authority implemented its own scheme—which would, I appreciate, include exemptions—some workers would pay into something and see the small revenues that are raised being spent elsewhere and not affecting their commuting or travel habits at all. That is a worry.

Stewart Stevenson

David Lonsdale correctly identified that, when an employer provides workplace parking, there is a physical infrastructure, and that that potentially attracts business rate liability. The levy is a further cost associated with the provision of parking. Can any panellist tell me about any substantial employer that currently passes on to employees the cost of providing parking to cover physical provision and business rates? If not, why would the workplace parking levy—which is a levy on the provider of the parking, not on individuals—be passed on to individuals when the existing costs are not?

Alistair Brown

The City of Edinburgh Council already passes that cost on to employees for key locations, particularly in the city centre.

Colin Smith

I might have picked you up wrong, but the business rates that our members already pay range from £130,000 a year to £500,000 a year. That excludes the large business supplement, which a lot of them will fall under. Businesses are already paying a tax on workplace parking space, which is obviously not passed on to the employee.

Stewart Stevenson

Forgive me, but you say that that is “obviously” not passed on to the employee. Is it not also obvious that businesses would not pass on the workplace parking levy to employees? That is the question that I am really asking. Is there a philosophical reason why we are suddenly talking about employees paying the WPL?

Colin Smith

It is a given that business rates are a cost on running a business and are absorbed as part of a company’s business costs, but the workplace parking levy would be an additional cost over and above that. Eighty-two per cent of my members who were surveyed said that they would pass on the levy to their employees because they could not afford to meet it.

That said, if business rates were to be reduced as a result of the introduction of the workplace parking levy, such that businesses would not be double taxed, my members might—I would need to go back and ask them about this—look to absorb the levy.

The Convener

I would like to clarify something. When an assessment for business rates is carried out, that is done on the basis of the rental value that the property could achieve on the open market. The business rates are set as a percentage of that value. If a business did not own its property and was hit by the workplace parking levy, surely it would go back to the landlord and say, “We’re paying an additional tax, so we want a reduction in the rent that we’re paying.” That would be the first thing that I would do if I was in that position.

Do any of the witnesses recognise the logic of that? Aviva probably owns the buildings that it uses. Is that right, Fiona?

Fiona Beale

No—predominantly, we rent.

The Convener

Do you think that there would be an opportunity to get a reduction in the rental value of the buildings that you use?

Fiona Beale

We have not given any consideration to whether we would appeal our rates if the levy was introduced.

The Convener

As a surveyor, I think that somebody might see the opportunities that exist there.

David Lonsdale

Stewart Stevenson has picked up on a good point. From our perspective, it is too early to say whether, if the amendments to the bill are agreed to and the levy comes into effect, employers in our industry would look to pass on some of the costs.

There might be other options. Fiona Beale talked about some of the support that her company gives to staff to encourage them to use public transport, whether through season ticket loans or schemes such as the provision of buses or cycle-to-work facilities. One option might be to cannibalise that budget to pay for the levy. However, as I said, it is too early to talk about whether the costs of the levy would be passed on and to consider what the detail of that might look like.

Several of our members have multiple sites in the same local authority area, which could increase the bill. It is yet to be determined what would happen in such cases, but the bill for meeting the levy could be quite large for companies in that situation. The introduction of the levy would have some unintended consequences. It might result in reductions in the provision of support for people to use public transport.

John Finnie

I have a question for Mr Lonsdale. All the committee’s papers are readily available online. In your written submission—which, I stress, is very helpful—you gave a bit of background information on your organisation and said that your members help to deliver £180 billion-worth of retail sales.

I want to follow up on Mr Stevenson’s question about the philosophical approach to the levy that is being taken. I get that people do not like paying taxes, but the workplace parking levy is just the latest in a number of things that the Scottish Retail Consortium is unhappy about; it is also unhappy about the apprenticeship levy, employer pension contributions and the statutory minimum wage. Therefore, the WPL is just your latest whinge, is it not?

David Lonsdale

I think that that is an unfair characterisation of our position.

John Finnie

Will you confirm that, in your submission, you expressed concern about the contributions that you have to make in each of the areas that I mentioned?

David Lonsdale

The argument that we make is that the retail industry is in a state of flux and change. Profound shifts are taking place in the way in which people are shopping. Shopping in bricks-and-mortar stores is declining—increasingly, people are shopping online. At the same time, consumers have less money than they had previously. The third strand is that costs are rising.

We support many of the policies that you have mentioned and which were touched on in our submission, but the cumulative burden—the wave after wave of costs that are increasing without any recognition of the economic impact—is quite incredible. You are right to finger—

John Finnie

You do not know the impact that the levy would have or where it would apply. The likelihood is that it would be applied to local authorities.

David Lonsdale

We have not—

John Finnie

You have not assessed the impact, but you are unhappy with what you say the impact will be.

The Convener

I will take John Finnie’s line of questioning and would like David Lonsdale to answer briefly. We will then move on to Richard Lyle, purely because we are on question 2 and I perceive that there may be multiples of 10 of that number to get through in the time that we have.

David Lonsdale

As I said, we have supported a lot of the other policies. Often, they all come at once, which is challenging for employers, particularly in tough market conditions.

The one thing in favour of a lot of those other policies is that there was some sort of economic assessment of them. In Scotland, there is a business and regulatory impact assessment. As far as I can see, nothing along those lines is associated with the levy. I have no idea whether the Scottish Government’s regulatory review group has had a chance to consider it and have input. It is quite astonishing that we are talking about the levy without any sense whatsoever of what the impact would be on consumers, businesses and local authorities. That we are making policy in that way in this day and age is startling. We are very supportive of evidence-based policy making in the round. We work constructively with the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government on a whole host of issues, but it is astonishing that there is no impact assessment at this point.

John Finnie

But your members—

The Convener

In fairness, I am going to leave John Finnie’s question hanging. It has been answered before. We will go to Richard Lyle’s question.

Richard Lyle

Good morning, panel. I wish Mr Lonsdale and anyone else good luck with the assessor and the landlord in trying to get the rent reduced—I think that some people are trying that.

A workplace parking levy relates to a parking space in a workplace—that is in the name. Do the panellists think that employers, which are under pressure to pay this and that—all the rates and whatever—would require their staff who use a workplace parking space to pay the levy, instead of the business paying for it? On the point that Helen Martin made, would it be realistic to expect employers to exempt lower-paid workers from paying the workplace parking levy, or would employers just say, “Everyone will pay it, because I am not going to pay it”?

The Convener

I will bring in Helen Martin first, because I did not let her answer the previous question, and I see that she is keen to answer this one.

Helen Martin

I am always keen.

We are concerned that employers will pass the levy on to employees, because the evidence from Nottingham suggests that about half of employers have passed the levy on to employees. That is the only evidence we have to work on, and that is why we think that the levy is likely to impact employees.

If the levy came in in a unionised workplace, the union would defend the workers’ terms and conditions and try to ensure that the employer paid it and did not pass it on to the employees. The reality of how that would shake out over the long term is difficult to know. Over time, things can creep into the employees’ payslips even if they are not necessarily agreed, as a result of other changes in terms and conditions.

Another thing to note is that such things tend to go backwards if they are left to their own devices. It would tend to be the lowest-paid workers who were not exempted from the levy, because having a parking space would go into the package of a chief executive officer but not into the package of a cleaner. In some ways, the logic of the workplace is backwards with regard to defending low-paid employees.

Alistair Brown

I agree with Helen Martin. Nottingham has the most publicised scheme and, from what we have heard, employers have passed the costs on. Local authorities are so pressed—we do not need to talk about how adult social care is breaking down because of a lack of resources—that I imagine that they would seek to recoup any costs that they possibly could.

David Lonsdale

I have already answered that question in part. To draw a link between Richard Lyle’s question and Stewart Stevenson’s question, the issue is that firms pay business rates once but, if the levy comes in, they will pay tax twice—they will pay business rates and the levy on their parking spaces on top of that. The principle changes somewhat. Alistair Brown made a point about trying to recoup some of the costs from staff. The levy lends itself to that.

The other thing to bear in mind is that our members are extremely concerned and acutely aware of the fact that not just companies but individuals face a number of pressures and strains at the moment. Colin Smith mentioned that. We have seen council tax rises, employee pension contributions have gone up, things such as deposit return schemes are coming into effect, and a number of other issues in the budget accord between the Scottish Government and the Greens will push up the cost of living. Workers and employees will therefore have a number of issues that challenge their pockets.

The Convener

Unless Richard Lyle would like to direct that question to anyone on the panel who has not answered it, I will now bring in Pauline McNeill and come back to him for his second question.

Richard Lyle

That is fine.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

I am interested in the question of exemptions. Maybe Helen Martin can give the answer that I need, but anyone else is welcome to comment.

The Scottish Government’s poverty strategy identifies that single parents are among the poorest; we know that people with a disability are among the poorest; and we know that lots of people who work are on universal credit. Do you have a view on the impact on those groups?

Also, I am interested in any information that you have about the number of single parents in the workplace and the range of salaries for shop workers, for example. I am interested in knowing whether there is any information about the number of people who come to work with a Motability car. Even if you do not have it today, it would be good to get that information at some point.

The Convener

That is quite a lot of information for somebody to have prepared to bring to the meeting. Perhaps the information could be submitted to the committee in writing later if people can track it down relatively quickly after the meeting.

Pauline McNeill

A general answer would be fine.

The Convener

Does somebody want to try to give a general answer? Helen?

Helen Martin

Amendment 16 helpfully says that blue badge holders would be exempt. That would be absolutely essential and it would not make a lot of sense not to do that, given the use of such schemes as the Motability scheme.

The more challenging issue is around lone parents, for example, or parents in general. One of the things that you have to do as a parent—as a working parent in particular—is to take your child somewhere to be looked after and then go to work. For a lot of parents, that means that using public transport is not really an option because you have to make the nursery run and then you have to get to work for the start time and then you have to get back for the nursery run.

As a working mother for many, many years, I was always chasing my tail; I was always working through my lunch; and I was always running everything up to the deadline to get back for the nursery pick-up. The idea of suddenly adding in a train journey or getting a train then a subway and then a bus would have been untenable for me. I would not have been able to do it. I would have had to suddenly find a completely different childcare option because I would not have been able to use the local authority nursery. That is an issue that is difficult to get around with just a pure exemption because those people will fall into a whole range of categories and they will be hard to identify but it is a real pressure, and it is a pressure that falls on women in particular.

The Convener

Thank you, Helen. That was a good answer. Alistair Brown wants to come in and then I will come back to Richard Lyle.

Alistair Brown

I will just quickly say that 80 per cent of our workers are women and they are working on average 13 hours a week extra that they are not being paid for. Unfortunately, women still disproportionately take more of a role in family life, caring for children and parents.

Richard Lyle

Many witnesses have raised concerns that employees may switch from parking in workplace car parks to on-street parking following the introduction of a WPL. That may create an antagonistic relationship between employers and residents and pose a safety risk to lone and shift workers.

I have quite a number of industrial estates in my constituency. Anyone who currently parks at their workplace may park their car on the roads in the industrial estates or the business parks and clog up the streets. Some people are concerned that, if introduced, the levy will cause a lot of bother. Do you agree with them?

Colin Smith

I mentioned that earlier. Such concerns have been noted in Nottingham. Some of our members have depots across the country, including one in Nottingham. The reality in Nottingham is that there has been a move from workplace parking to on-street parking, leading to the council putting in double yellow lines, which moves people further away from those areas. Indeed, the council is now having to spend money on reorganising roads and so on to deal with the congestion issues that the levy has created.

Our concern, which is again to do with the safety of our employees, is that on-street parking will—

The Convener

David Belsey wants to come in on that point.

David Belsey

Parking on streets is an obvious way for workers to save money, should the employer transfer the new tax on to them. That approach will work for them in some places but, in other places, such as Edinburgh, the cost of parking on the streets is in itself very high.

I echo some of Alistair Brown’s earlier comments about teaching. The majority of teachers are women, many of whom have caring responsibilities, and I echo Helen Martin’s comments in that regard.

The submission from Unison, which is a sister union of ours, makes the point that, in Nottingham, the union has raised a grievance—I think that it is a collective grievance—on behalf of low-paid workers, who it feels have taken a disproportionate hit because of the workplace parking levy.

Richard Lyle

It has been drawn to my attention that quite a number of teachers park in their school’s grounds. The school that I was standing outside last Thursday has 25 parking spaces for the teachers. What would happen if they all parked on the road, which does not have a double yellow line? Sadly, quite a lot of people misuse the roads when parking near schools to collect their children. If they could park right next to the classroom, they would.

Do you think that most teachers, if they had to pay a levy, would park their cars outwith the school and on the road somewhere? Again, that would affect their safety.

David Belsey

Yes. A levy would affect the behaviours of those teachers who currently park at schools. We assume that the local authority would transfer the cost, which may be about £500—it may be more; it may be less. For those teachers who have seen the value of their real-terms pay fall over years and years, every expenditure is carefully monitored, so, if they can avoid paying such a levy, they will.

Some teachers may go on to public transport, but for many that will not be a credible option not only because public transport will not get them to their school on time, but because it will not allow people to drop off their child or fulfil other responsibilities before they get to the school. Also, teachers tend to carry their work home, including their pupils’ work and materials used to prepare their lessons. Therefore, for many teachers, parking their car on the road and having a longer walk to and from school would be problematic.

Those are all areas of concern for us with the proposed levy.

The Convener

We have not really addressed safety issues. Are there safety issues? Helen Martin mentioned evening shift workers. Some people in employment will be worried about parking their car away from their work, because they could be accosted on the street and that sort of thing. Is that an issue?

David Belsey

The carrying of heavy loads from where someone parks their car to where they work is problematic. Some of us have seen the situation outside schools where lots of people park. The cars are often parked close together, which is dangerous. Having more cars parked there will raise road safety concerns. In terms of safety, someone having an extra journey or an extra element to the journey to their workplace will always increase risk.

Fiona Beale

We have a lot of shift workers in our two key Scottish locations, and there is overnight work, so it is important that our people are able to go by car to the office, which is in an out-of-town location. We have taken no decision yet on whether we would pass on any levy that was implemented, but I will continue to press for some recognition of organisations that have taken some measures.

The Convener

John Finnie has a brief question, then we will move on to Colin Smyth.

John Finnie

Mr Belsey, do all your members have access to parking at the premises where they work? I did not appreciate how dangerous parking in the street was, but it seems to be a big issue for a number of people.

David Belsey

I do not believe that all teachers have access to car parking in their schools; it depends on the nature of the school premises.

John Finnie

Given the concerns that you have raised about the implications—

The Convener

John, I said that you could have one question. You have had quite a few and I am concerned because we have a lot to get through, so we will move on to Colin Smyth’s question.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

It was mentioned earlier that the bill is, in effect, enabling legislation that will enable 32 local authorities to have one or more workplace parking levy schemes in their areas. What are the panel’s views on the challenges that their organisations could face from having multiple, different schemes in different parts of Scotland?

David Lonsdale

If multiple local authorities introduce the levy, there will be multiple billing authorities to deal with. Going back to the issue of business rates for a moment, one of the strengths of the reform agenda that the Scottish Government is pursuing is the intention to standardise bills across Scotland. We would like to see something similar for the levy. My understanding of the situation in Nottingham is that people can apply online for the levy. Simple mechanisms that make it simple and easy for companies to apply would be hugely beneficial.

Making decisions in good time so that companies can factor the levy into their budgeting would also be helpful. I saw in either Mr Finnie’s paperwork or the Nottingham example talk of eight weeks or something like that, whereas the Scottish Government signals four months in advance its tax decisions on the amount to be charged and who will be liable. Those are a couple of the things on which we would like to see some consistency of approach by councils in Scotland that implement the levy.

Colin Smith

I agree with everything that David Lonsdale said. The issue is the complexity for our members of working across different councils. We would need some standardisation of the definition of a workplace parking place, because I note that amendment 8 refers to workplace parking places for business customers, business visitors and so on. If the definition was left to a council to determine, that would cause problems for our members and for any business. I also note that Nottingham City Council said last week that the beauty of the workplace parking levy is its flexibility. Having flexibility is all well and good but, as David Lonsdale said, we require clarity and standardisation across councils on how the levy will be implemented. In particular, the costs should be equal across councils, so that everyone knows what they will pay.

Colin Smyth

Advocates of the levy strongly argue that it should be passed on to workers, because they see it as a financial stick to encourage people not to use their cars. That is the whole point, according to some organisations—for example, Glasgow City Council’s lead councillor for transport made that argument to the committee last week. However, some people are concerned that, if the levy is passed on to employees, it will not reflect the ability to pay, because it is a flat rate. Should a requirement for arrangements to be based on the ability to pay be built into the bill? Should that be left entirely up to each employer to decide?

David Lonsdale

A bit like Aviva, we will wait to see whether the power comes into effect and whether any councils flex it before our members take a view on whether to pass on the cost to staff. That might be an option; I am not a human resources or finance payroll person, so I do not know whether that would be easy or complicated to do.

The committee could usefully do some things, such as considering whether to cap the levy, as we said in our submission. Scotland has business improvement districts, which are term limited. The committee could usefully look at whether such a limit should apply to the levy.

Perhaps I should have said earlier that, if my reading of Mr Finnie’s amendments and policy narrative is correct, councils could apply the levy in parts of their areas, as opposed to their entire areas. A minor and perhaps somewhat unfounded concern is that councils might draw a line on a map that excludes their headquarters, premises or business and commercial parks where they have a fiduciary or financial interest at stake. The committee needs to be alive to that.

Colin Smyth

I have a follow-up question. It has been suggested—I think wrongly—that the number of schemes might be limited because they might be introduced only in cities that have sufficient public transport, although there might be more than one scheme in a city. That completely ignores the fact that not everybody who works in a city lives there. Thousands of my constituents in the south of Scotland travel every day from the Borders to Edinburgh for work, for example, but the levy will be based on local authority boundaries and not on wider boundaries.

A constituent of mine who lives in the Borders, where public transport is limited, and who uses their car to travel into Edinburgh city centre will have no say whatever in whether the levy is imposed, because that will be entirely for the City of Edinburgh Council. Not a single penny that that council raises will be spent on improving public transport in the Borders to help my constituent. The challenge is that thousands of people outwith a local authority’s boundaries will have to pay the levy but will get none of its apparent benefits. How can that challenge be overcome?

Helen Martin

I do not have a solution, but I share the concern. It is clear that the levy could have a negative impact on commuter towns. A range of people have no choice but to travel to work by car; they would have to pay the levy if they continued to drive, which is one reason why the proposal would not impact congestion well. Those workers would not experience the improvements and they would have no way to avoid paying. That is one of the unfairnesses of the levy. There is a range of unfairnesses that are difficult to get around, and the system will become increasingly complex as you try to solve small issues with exemptions to the levy or different ways of running the scheme. In addition, the levy does not create that much money for a local authority potentially to transform public transport. There is a range of such issues that need to be considered.

John Mason

On that point, an amendment to one of the amendments suggests that in order to overcome that challenge, it might be better if the regional transport partnerships implemented the levy. Do any of you agree, or at least consider that an option?

Alistair Brown

A lot of our members travel, particularly to city centres, and because of the type of work that they do, and the intervention that they do in communities, they do not usually live in the communities in which they work.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

My question is focused on David Lonsdale’s submission, in which he said, in paragraph 15:

“We would be concerned if the WPL opened the door to allowing local authorities to extend the levy to customer parking.”

I do not know whether he is aware of this, but amendment 8 includes the phrase, “business customer”, which would mean that customers of a business would be caught by the legislation. David Lonsdale, are you aware of that?

David Lonsdale

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Where retailers provide parking, it tends to be for customers; retail parking—unlike parking at Aviva or companies in other sectors—is not necessarily delineated for staff. That is a real worry. Glasgow City Council said in its evidence that it wants a wider power on parking. Our concern is that that would be the thin edge of the wedge. If the levy was introduced more widely, for example for parking at retail properties and premises, we would be talking about a significant increase in the cost of the levy, so that would be a concern.

Mike Rumbles

You are saying that it would have a major effect. We are not just talking about workplace parking for employees of businesses, because amendment 8 talks about business customers. I have lodged an amendment today to remove the phrase “business customer” to make John Finnie’s proposal more acceptable—not that I think that it is anyway, but my amendment would make it more reasonable. I just wanted to make that clear to John Finnie.

The Convener

Is there a question, Mike?

Mike Rumbles

I am surprised that David Lonsdale has not focused on the big impact that amendment 8 would have on his members.

David Lonsdale

My interpretation of that is that it would mean that contractors and suppliers and so on would be included in the levy. Part of the problem is the fact that we simply do not have enough detail. There is a startling paucity of detail about what the levy would mean in practice. That is why I remarked at the outset that we do not have any economic impact assessment of the levy. A lot of the questions are great questions, but they should have been teased out to a certain extent by some sort of impact and regulatory statement.

Mike Rumbles

The fact is that you cannot pass on a charge to customers other than through higher prices. Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the impact of amendment 8 is that your members would either have to absorb the levy into the business, out of profit, or pass it on in increased prices to customers. Is that not the logic of that?

David Lonsdale

Retailers are in the business of trying to provide excellent value to their customers and will do as much as they can to ensure that they keep prices down, but it is incredibly difficult, for all the reasons that we talked about earlier—the great wave of cost pressures that are coming through. We understand that the public sector does not necessarily have the money either, but the other side of the equation is that these taxes have to be paid for. You can only spend the money once.

Colin Smith

Mike Rumbles is absolutely right. That is why I mentioned amendment 8. Because the definition that it provides of “workplace parking places” covers business customers, convenience stores throughout communities—we are talking about 4,972 convenience stores—would be affected. Wherever people go to buy food and drink, whether that is their local cafe, pub, club or restaurant, that business will probably be serviced through one of our members. A lot of our members operate a cash-and-carry depot, to which convenience store operators will come to pick up their juice, crisps and so on. They will come in a van and will come out with trolleys loaded with goods rather than carrier bags. If our members were suddenly hit with the workplace parking levy, they would have to absorb the cost, because if they did not, that would prohibit them from operating. Car parking spaces for their business customers are a necessity for our members because of the nature of what they offer.

As the wholesaler is at the start of the supply chain, he will be squeezed the most, because he can raise his costs by only so much. The cost price to the convenience store or the restaurateur is dictated by the market price, and that comes from the multiples—the supermarkets and the discounters. They are the ones who dictate the wholesaler’s cost price. The retailer cannot go much beyond the price that a supermarket is paying because, if they do, they will become uncompetitive and will not be able to survive.

Our wholesalers’ net margins are less than 1 per cent; they operate a high-volume, low-margin business. That is why we are opposed to the workplace parking levy. Our members would not be able to absorb that cost, and 82 per cent of them would pass it on to the employee. It is the employee and, ultimately, the consumer who would pay for the levy. It could not be absorbed in the cost stream unless everyone was willing to pass on the increased costs in the price of the goods that people buy.

The Convener

Jamie Greene will lead off on a new section of questions.

Jamie Greene

The workplace parking levy is a confusing issue for the committee, and we have received conflicting submissions from stakeholders on how we should approach it. The next panel will include proponents of the levy, and we will have a perfect opportunity to ask them suitable questions.

In its submission, Sustrans Scotland makes the statement:

“A WPL is a progressive policy that is likely to be of greatest benefit to people on lower incomes.”

In its submission, the STUC—which I believe represents more than half a million workers in Scotland—says that the levy

“has a disproportionately negative impact on those with the lowest incomes.”

Who are we to believe?

Helen Martin

Sustrans and the STUC are trying to present an analysis of a policy that is not yet in place and for which we do not have firm proposals. The issue is probably to do with the assumptions that we make. I can lay out what my assumptions are and you will be able to ask the Sustrans witness what their assumptions are.

It is my assumption that a lot of low-paid workers would face the levy and that it would not revolutionise public transport to the degree that members of the next panel might believe that it would. I will set out my reasoning for that. When I look at the Transport (Scotland) Bill, I see problems with it that will prevent bus transport in particular from getting the investment and the attention that it needs in order to improve. The costs that are associated with other large-scale transport schemes—I am talking about transformative projects such as tram and rail upgrades—run to hundreds of millions of pounds. The WPL in Nottingham raises £9 million. Nottingham City Council has done some interesting things—nobody can say that it has not—but it has not done them on the basis of the WPL alone.

Therefore, it is right to think about the wider context of the Scottish economy. The on-going austerity for local authorities is an issue; the fact that the Scottish national investment bank will not be able to invest in the public sector and therefore will not be able to support large-scale transport infrastructure is also an issue that needs to be taken into account. We need to think about where the other funding sources would come from to develop the transport infrastructure.

I return to the issue of buses. The one area where £9 million might make a difference is buses but, if a local authority cannot run a municipal bus company and invest properly in the local network, which the Transport (Scotland) Bill would not allow it to do, the levy would not unlock the potential sufficiently in order to get the impacts that would benefit low-wage workers; instead, it would just become a tax on low-paid people who are already living in poverty and having a difficult time.

Jamie Greene

I am sure that the committee will reflect on your comments about bus franchising, and that we will address those issues when we meet next Wednesday for stage 2 of the bill. Do any of the other panellists have a view?

David Belsey

The levy is proposed as a flat-rate tax, and it is generally accepted that flat-rate taxes are not progressive. A person earning £15,000 a year faced with a £500 tax will take quite a hit, which might affect their lifestyle, whereas someone earning £100,000, such as company directors, which one of the committee members referred to earlier, would not be affected by that.

There is an assumption in some of the submissions that I have read that poor people do not use cars so they would not be hit by a levy. That is fundamentally wrong.

Another assumption is that the taxes raised would somehow benefit the poorer parts of local authorities more than others. Given the evidence that is before us, it is quite a stretch to accept that poorer communities would be treated differently from communities in other parts of the city in which they live.

Jamie Greene

One fundamental issue that we face when deciding whether to accept the workplace parking levy amendment is that proponents of the policy say that it is simply an enabling power that would give local authorities the ability to decide for themselves whether to implement a levy. Given that, I return to the earlier line of questioning. What is your advice to the committee when considering whether we should give such a power to local authorities?

The Convener

Do you want to target your question at anyone in particular?

Jamie Greene

It is for whoever has a strong view on it.

David Lonsdale

To provide a short answer, we are not supportive of the levy.

To go back to the previous question about people on lower incomes, an impact assessment might have teased out that the levy, even if it is not recharged to staff, could still affect them. For example, a number of our members operate a bonus scheme that is dependent on the profits derived from individual stores. The money available for staff bonuses could be somewhat diminished because of the levy.

A more rounded consideration of the policy would have teased out some of those issues. You may find that, even if staff are not necessarily recharged, irrespective of whether the amount is £400 or £500, they would be affected.

Jamie Greene

My point is that, if the panellists are saying that there is merit in having a conversation about the levy as a policy but that the way in which it is proposed that it be introduced is not the right way, would it be better to take the measure out of the Transport (Scotland) Bill and postpone it and have a proper, sensible and grown-up consultation about how it might be implemented and the effect that it might have on workers and businesses?

Helen Martin

We are against the workplace parking levy. If it was brought back in another bill next month, we would still be against it. Maybe we would take a different view if the proposal came with a big green strategy around it and investment, other forms of money and an end to local authority austerity. However, unless that is what is proposed, I would not expect a different answer from us next month on the levy.

The Convener

On the use of cars, the bill has provisions for low-emission zones in Scotland that will require people to upgrade their cars to meet the Euro 6 classification. That will mean that a lot of cars—pre-2015 cars—cannot be used in low-emission zones without paying a cost. Do you think that the combination of a charge for a low-emission zone and the workplace parking levy might hit hardest those who can least afford to pay?

Helen Martin

That is right. We are also particularly concerned about how that will hit public vehicles and we hope that the committee will reflect on that. We are concerned about the impact of the parking levy and the fact that people often do not have any choice but to use their car. Our point primarily is that sometimes no public transport is available that is effective, meets people’s needs and allows them to balance their other responsibilities. With the parking levy, such people would have to decide whether their work was still profitable for them, which is a hard choice. Most people want to work and want to continue to work, and we would never want to prevent people from being able to do that. The reality for most workers is that they will have to continue to work but would live with a greater level of poverty because of the levy.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The discussion so far has been interesting. There has been the assumption that the workplace parking levy, which is a levy on business, will automatically be transferred to employees to protect the bottom line for business owners and their shareholders and ensure that they are not affected. The witnesses have talked about the possible implications for employees. How many of the organisations that you represent have done a proper cost benefit analysis of the implications of passing the levy on to employees?

The Scottish wholesale consortium has stated that it conducted a survey of its members. Can you tell us what questions you asked, what proportion of members responded and what the survey’s key findings were? Were the total costs to businesses considered? Given all the problems for employees that the witnesses have highlighted, do businesses genuinely want to pass on the levy to their employees?

Colin Smith

For clarity, we are the Scottish Wholesale Association. Prior to coming here, we sent a survey on the workplace parking levy to all our members. To be honest, we did not have much time to do a full in-depth analysis of the responses or get a full response rate. However, the survey was out for a week and we had a 35 per cent response rate from our members, which is quite a high rate, considering that consultations normally take three months. We asked a host of questions, including whether our members want the levy, what their concerns about it are and whether they agree that councils should have the power to implement the levy or whether it should be a Government-led levy.

The figures that I have already quoted are that 92 per cent of our membership have shift workers and that 82 per cent would be looking to pass the levy on to their employees. That goes back to the fact that our members have low-margin businesses and every cost at the top needs to come off at the bottom. David Lonsdale talked about the rates, which are a huge cost for our members’ businesses, as will be the deposit return scheme that is coming in. Our members will have to build extra warehouse space to hold dual stock—English and Scottish stock—which one of our members has said will cost it £500,000. In our sector, the track and trace approach has also just been implemented to track tobacco all the way through the market.

All those costs have a cumulative impact on profitability. If our margins are low, the quick fix comes from staffing, to be honest—only so much can be taken out of the cost of a packet of crisps. Among our affiliate members in Nottingham, one has reduced its workforce in the past year by 20 members. That was not just because of the WPL’s costs; it was because of the cumulative costs that are hitting the food and drink industry.

I am more than happy to share other figures that came out of our survey, if that would help. I am not sure whether I have fully answered the question or whether Maureen Watt would like to ask anything else.

Maureen Watt

That is fine—thank you.

David Belsey

It is important not to look at the levy as simply a tax on business; it is a potential tax on workplaces, such as schools, libraries, colleges and social services facilities. The tax is on parking at workplaces.

People have said that the assumption is that the levy will be passed on to staff—there were questions about that. For the levy to deliver its environmental aims of reducing congestion and improving the air, it must be passed on to workers—it must change workers’ behaviour so that fewer people drive to work. That is the logic. It is ironic that some people have asked why the levy will be transferred to workers when that is the only way in which it can produce an environmental benefit, which will offset the cost on workers. That is the balance that the committee faces.

David Lonsdale

Ms Watt mentioned a cost benefit analysis. That should have been done to accompany the amendments or should at least have been signalled in advance. I totally get that the Government needs to work with other parties to have its budget passed and that there is give and take, but the levy throws up a broader question about the approach to budget accords in the round and about whether policy making is subject to sufficient rigour and analysis. I do not have the solution, but it is unsatisfactory to introduce policies such as this; I do not disparage Mr Finnie’s thinking—

The Convener

That is good, because I am going to let Mr Finnie in after you have answered.

David Lonsdale

The proposal raises broader questions about policy making in the round.

It is difficult for companies to work out the impact, because we do not know who will be liable, we have no clue what the tax rate will be and we do not know whether the levy will be a slab tax or whether thresholds will apply and, if so, how long they will apply for. The policy is a sort of pig in a poke—we have no idea what we are buying into.

The Convener

I will let John Finnie come back with a question.

John Finnie

Ironically, my question is not to Mr Lonsdale, who is clearly familiar with parliamentary procedures.

Everyone seems to commend localism and to think that there is a climate emergency. My question is for Mr Belsey. Given the representations that we have heard, do you imagine that your members would say that you have already ceded that they will pay the levy? I was involved in workplace negotiations for two decades and I think that the EIS and the STUC have taken a peculiar position on the levy. Behaviour can be shaped in many ways. Everything suggests that improved availability of public transport means that people are less likely to use their motor vehicles.

David Belsey

We would all welcome improved public transport links that allowed commuters to travel more effectively and allowed people to choose public transport. People who are concerned about the amendments worry that they are part of a Government-sponsored proposal with the Green Party, which means that they will have an in-built majority.

John Finnie

You do not like democracy.

David Belsey

No, that is not—

The Convener

Mr Finnie, that is unfair. I say to David Belsey that not all members of the Government party necessarily support the measure, as we have seen, so democracy will take its course. With the greatest respect, Mr Finnie, I think that criticising—

John Finnie

For the avoidance of doubt, the reason for those comments is because people are making overt party-political points, so it is appropriate that I am facilitated the opportunity to respond, as I did there. I will leave it at that.

The Convener

In fairness, Mr Finnie, I do not know what party politics are around this table. I am just listening and taking evidence from a mixed group of people. The next panel may have a different party-political view. I do not really care; I am listening to the evidence, as I hope all members are. We park our politics at the door; we are looking to see whether we can pass good legislation.

On that basis, I will let Helen Martin come in briefly while I get rid of my cough.

Helen Martin

We absolutely have not ceded the point. If the amendment came in, trade unions would defend our members’ terms and conditions—as I think I said earlier—and we would try to ensure that employers did not pass on the cost to employees.

The irony is that it is easier to defend the terms and conditions of higher-paid workers than it is to defend those of lower-paid workers, because lower-paid workers often work in sectors where there are very low margins and where the employers are seeking to push things down to the employees more and more regularly.

If you agree to the amendment, an exemption for social work, for example, would be absolutely essential, because of the crisis that exists in social work and the difficulty that trade unions would have in defending our members in that sector. However, I would be concerned about our members in retail and in wholesale as well.

We also have to remember that not everybody is covered by and has the protection of a trade union. An awful lot of low-paid workers would find themselves basically bargaining alone with their employer on the issue, and I would be concerned about those workers.

The Convener

In fairness, I am sure that we will cover exemptions at some stage before the end of the evidence session.

Stewart Stevenson

This is a question for Fiona Beale, based on what it says in the Aviva submission about passing on the charge to staff. I will just set out some assumptions before I form my question. They are Edinburgh based so they are not wholly applicable to the locations that Aviva is in.

Five parking spaces in Bread Street in Edinburgh were advertised recently for a capital cost of £50,000, an indication that the business rates would be £3,700, which works out at £740 per space. That is a cost that one can project. Given that business rates and rental go hand in hand, I assume that the rental cost would also be £740, so that works out at £1,500, near enough—those are very round figures and it is very rough and ready but I want to explain where I am coming from.

I have also looked at office space in Edinburgh, which costs £28 per square foot. The average space for a worker is 75 square feet. That is £2,100 in rental rates, so we are up to £4,200. I have personally estimated—so this is the least robust part of a not very robust calculation—that services to provide for that office worker come to £1,000.

Just for the physical provisioning for an employee, the cost is £6,700. We then look at average earnings, at about £27,500. We are now up to £34,000 for provisioning for an employee with a car parking space. If we look at the levy charge in Nottingham, we are looking at another £400. What is that as an addition to the overall cost? The answer is that 1.2 per cent of the cost of employing someone is attributable to the workplace parking levy.

Furthermore, I make the little point that Aviva can recover the VAT that would be charged on workplace parking, because it is registered. If it passes on the cost to the employee, that is an £80 charge that the employee cannot recover, so you are creating a tax on the employee, which the company would not pay.

Why would that 1.2 per cent increase in the cost of provisioning for an employee be passed on? The figure could be 2 per cent—we can play around with my numbers; the ranges can be quite big. Why are you saying that that particular 1.2 per cent increase in your costs would be passed on to your employees when other costs, such as variations in corporation tax, business rates and rentals—there will be rental review periods for the rental premises—are not? Why are you saying that you would pass on that one small proportion of your costs of employing someone to your employee? I have not even talked about subsidised canteens, holiday pay or all sorts of other costs that there might be. It is a simple question. [Laughter.]

The Convener

Before Fiona Beale answers that, all that I will say is thank goodness that Stewart Stevenson is not a commercial surveyor, because that is not how rents are worked out and costs attributed.

Stewart Stevenson

Well—

The Convener

No, it really is not, Stewart.

Fiona Beale

I think that I know where Stewart Stevenson is coming from—he is getting that from my colleague’s submission.

Stewart Stevenson

Correct.

Fiona Beale

The submission has been quite poorly worded, because we have not taken a decision on whether we would pass on the costs to staff. In the centre of town, we charge our staff £58 a month for car parking, because, broadly speaking, Aviva is supportive of measures that reduce congestion and take cars off the road in town. We think that staff have a range of choices.

We have 2,000 employees in Scotland and Aviva’s concerns lie in our out-of-town locations. We absolutely have not committed to passing on the costs of a WPL to staff. We have a range of transport support options for staff that we are funding already.

Richard Lyle

Do you agree that the figures provided by Stewart Stevenson show how much businesses are already paying and that we should not load more on to them? Is the levy a tax too far?

Fiona Beale

I do not know whether I am the best person to comment on that, Mr Lyle—I work in Aviva’s property and facilities team and I am not an expert on the legislation.

The levy would be another cost that any organisation would have to take into account when choosing where it locates and, indeed, whether they choose to operate and locate in Scotland. It would not impact Aviva’s thinking. We have more than 2,000 people here, we are massively committed to Scotland and we work with the Scottish Parliament and our local representatives, but it may have impacts on others.

David Lonsdale

I think that Stewart Stevenson’s information and how he builds his case teases out one key fact: there are a heck of a lot of fixed costs to be met—and that is before a retailer sells a single good or product. I throw into the mix the large business rates supplement, which is higher in Scotland than it is south of the border. That alone costs Scottish retailers an extra £14.1 million a year—those are the Scottish Government’s figures; I have not made them up off the top of my head. Added to that is the business improvement district levy, which many employers pay.

As I said earlier, a company that is paying tax twice might be more inclined to think about whether to pass on the levy or to make savings elsewhere. As I said, one option might be to reduce spend on active travel. Another option that might be worth considering involves taking a less positive or generous approach to supporting business improvement districts when they come up for renewal, because that levy is 1 per cent of business rates. There are a number of potential consequences that would have been teased out if an impact assessment had accompanied Mr Finnie’s amendments.

The Convener

Colin Smith, do you want to say anything or are you in broad agreement?

Colin Smith

I am in agreement.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I will be concise, unlike Mr Stevenson. My question is specifically for Mr Brown. You said in your submission that social workers should be exempt from the WPL, just as national health service premises would be. Why should your workforce be exempt? Should such an exemption be on a national basis, or should it be a decision for individual local authorities?

Alistair Brown

The pressure that local authorities are under has been expressed a number of times. Because councils’ budgets are so tight, they will look at making savings wherever they can, so we feel that there should be an amendment on the exemption of social workers. With all the respect in the world to the members that Helen Martin and David Lonsdale represent, our argument is that social workers have a particular and peculiar role. They are active all day, out in their cars, visiting people at home, trying to get people out of hospital and into other care facilities. They do difficult work dealing with adult and child protection, minimising public harms, carrying confidential and sensitive material, and interacting with people in difficult circumstances. A lot of our members have been very vocal and vociferous about their need to use their cars. Therapeutic work goes on in our members’ cars, too.

We have taken that on board and we think that, because of the statutory responsibilities of social workers, an exemption needs to be considered. On the other hand, blanket exemption for NHS workers has got to depend on whether that person has good transport links to their work, is a shift worker or is based at one site where they remain all day. Does part of what they do with their car involve transporting the people they work with? That does not seem to have been articulated in any way. We are not exactly coming out against the levy, because we support modal shift and acknowledge the impact of pollution, particularly on the poor, as described by some of the submissions. However, our members feel strongly about this and we think that there should be an amendment to exempt social workers.

Peter Chapman

You think that that should be decided nationally, rather than by individual local authorities.

Alistair Brown

It is a very complex picture. Local authorities use a mixture of approaches. There might be pool cars, and there is the odd electric car. Some councils say that they will provide access to the Enterprise car club. At the end of the day, though, our members tell us that there are not robust transport options in place to let them replace their constant dependence on their own private vehicles, which they are using for work purposes. For example, if I, as a mental health officer, was to go and get a warrant to get somebody to hospital who unfortunately was unable to look after themselves or was a significant risk to themselves or others, I would have to visit them several times that day before I went to a justice of the peace or a sheriff to get the warrant. It is reactive work—it has got to be there and then. We have got to respond immediately and several times, and the work cannot be scheduled.

Peter Chapman

Helen Martin, 10 minutes ago you spoke up for social workers. You would obviously have a similar view to that of Mr Brown.

Helen Martin

Yes. We would see social workers as part of a healthcare workforce. There are a lot of issues in social care at the minute and the treatment of the workforce is a serious one. There are lots of social care workers who are on very low pay.

The STUC has been supporting the Government with the implementation of the living wage for a number of years. It would not be good for members of the primary health care workforce who are on the living wage to find themselves in a situation in which they faced the workplace parking levy, given that they cannot not use their car. We must also recognise that there are already recruitment issues in social care, and the WPL—although it is a small thing—could have an impact on the cost of work for workers in that sector. Many social care employers are private sector employers and, as such, they would be likely to pass on the levy.

Peter Chapman

My second question is specifically for Mr Belsey.

You have made it clear that the EIS is opposed to the introduction of the workplace parking levy. Have you spoken to your colleagues in Nottingham in an effort to understand the impact that it has had on teachers in that city?

David Belsey

There are no EIS colleagues in Nottingham, and I have not had the opportunity to speak to members of our sister unions, such as the National Education Union, in Nottingham.

Peter Chapman

So, you have no idea what impact the levy has had on teachers in Nottingham.

David Belsey

I have had no specific contact with teachers in Nottingham.

Jamie Greene

Earlier, the comment was made that one of the substantive questions that we must address is that of employers passing on the levy to their employees to protect their bottom line or their shareholders. However, the reality is that many public sector employers are accountable not to shareholders but to publicly funded organisations with very tight budgets.

If we are considering exemptions for NHS workers, social workers, teachers and teaching assistants, should we consider exemptions for workers such as police officers, firefighters, people who work in care homes or hospices and volunteers who man Royal National Lifeboat Institution stations? Should we have a comprehensive exemption list to make the levy fair and equal, or should we just target specific types of workplace?

The Convener

I will bring in Helen Martin, because she nodded.

Helen Martin

I think that Mr Greene is getting to why we do not want the levy to be introduced. A case could be made for all the workers he mentioned to have an exemption. Indeed, that case could be made for the entire public sector and for the outsourced public sector, such as members of the social care workforce and the childcare workforce. There will be workers who, as part of the expansion of childcare, provide free funded hours in a private sector setting. We could keep on going but, at some point, we must consider whether the power to impose the levy should exist at all.

Fiona Beale

I have a general observation to make. The fact that we are having this discussion in committee makes me wonder whether enough time has been allowed to consider the issue. I understand that the workplace parking levy proposal has been introduced at a late stage in the consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I have a general question: have we had enough time for consultation and discussion?

The Convener

It is interesting when committee members are asked questions by the witnesses.

Jamie Greene

I am very happy to answer questions from witnesses. The simple answer is that we have not had enough time.

David Lonsdale

I echo Helen Martin’s point that the fact that there are so many examples of people from different parts of society for whom an exemption is sought begs a fundamental question about the policy.

I add that there are plenty of good and deserving jobs in the retail industry. Loneliness is a topical issue at the moment, and it is important for people to have contact on a regular or semi-regular basis with people they know and respect in their local community. The retail sector provides an element of that.

More fundamentally, there is a strong argument for having relatively few exemptions, which would make the levy more broadly based and would allow the level of it to be kept down. That goes back to Mr Finnie’s objective, which is to put a tax on premises and to use the money to fund particular green initiatives. If we were to narrow the tax base markedly, surely the levy that would have to be charged would be even higher than the figures that Stewart Stevenson mentioned.

Richard Lyle

Do the panellists agree that the levy would bring in creative accounting and that the council would, in effect, be paying itself? For example, school headteachers would have to pay the levy and therefore the council would have to charge itself.

The Convener

No one is disagreeing.

Richard Lyle

No, nobody is disagreeing. That is fine.

The Convener

That concludes my fellow members’ questions. I have a question that is based on the evidence that we heard last week and this morning. The message seems to be that, if we are to get the modal shift to people using other forms of transport instead of their car, they must buy into the process. The only way that they will do that is by their feeling the pain by paying the levy themselves and not by their employers paying it. That is the message that we have heard this morning.

We heard last week that three options were on the table when Nottingham City Council was considering the issue: a congestion charge, low-emission zones and a workplace parking levy. Nottingham felt that it could go for only one of the three measures because it would be unfair to hit people with more than that. Do you favour another way—that is, to have a congestion charge or a low-emission zone—to achieve the modal shift rather than the workplace parking levy? I ask each of you to respond briefly.

David Lonsdale

My simple response is that we simply do not have the information at hand to make those decisions. Maureen Watt asked where the cost benefit analysis is for any of the options. That goes to the heart of the issue, and it is the fundamental problem with the workplace parking levy. As I said earlier, it is a bit of a pig in a poke because we have scarce detail about that. Being asked to make a decision or take a view now on three different options on which we do not have any economic analysis is too challenging.

The Convener

That is what I would call a sloped-shoulder response.

Fiona Beale

I probably agree with what David Lonsdale has said. Obviously, the areas that I represent in Aviva are unlikely to need any help with air emissions and congestion, so I am probably not best placed to talk more widely about how the options would impact city centres.

Alistair Brown

Our recent working conditions survey showed that up to 40 per cent of social workers were feeling so stressed and overloaded that they were thinking about leaving the profession. It is true to say that any further pressures could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back; that would certainly be the case if more than one pressure impacted on them at the same time. There has to be more sophisticated thought about the options, particularly in relation to those workers who use their cars to carry out statutory and legal duties in stressful situations.

David Belsey

I think that everybody, including teachers, would support the aim of a modal shift from car usage. However, the problem is using a tax against workers—the levy would be a stick rather than a carrot. Teachers face similar pressures to those of social workers that Alistair Brown mentioned. It is difficult to recruit and retain teachers in some areas, particularly for schools in rural communities and poorer areas. The proposals for a workplace parking levy, a congestion charge and low-emission zones smack of using the stick approach. There are more supportive ways that would allow workers to make a choice of their own volition, so that they could see a more attractive way of travelling to work and not feel that they were being pushed into something. That is what we would want going forward.

To put it simply, we have no policy in place on congestion charges or low-emission zones, so I cannot give you a specific answer on those options.

Helen Martin

We want investment in public transport to be considered, particularly investment in buses. Currently, £298 million of public money goes into private companies in the bus system, but we do not think that that money is being used well. We are concerned about the franchising system in general. There is not much competition for bus franchises in local areas—about half of all franchising contracts receive a single bid. The lack of competition does not get the best price for the local authority.

The system desperately needs to be looked at because the number of buses is falling and fares have risen by 18 per cent. Buses are being withdrawn from local communities. There are now towns and other areas in Scotland that are not served by any bus. That is what desperately needs to be looked at; that is what needs to be unlocked. We believe that more could be done to create a modal shift by ensuring that there is a mode to shift to. That is where we need to look.

Colin Smith

I agree with everything that David Lonsdale said, especially about the cost benefit analysis. The one point that I make is, regardless of what is introduced and where, our members deliver across multiple councils all over Scotland. They could be in Glasgow one day, where an LEZ is in place, come across to Edinburgh, where, at the moment, there is no LEZ, and then go up to Dundee, where there is an LEZ, or there might be a congestion charge.

Any measure creates a whole lot of complexity, whether it be an LEZ, a congestion charge, or a workplace parking levy. Again, it comes back to managing the cost and how it is paid. It is burdensome on business.

The Convener

Thank you all for coming in and giving us your views. It has been extremely helpful, as the committee goes through the democratic process of working out whether the amendments on a workplace parking levy are a good addition to the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which we will decide when we go through all the amendments to the bill.

Thank you for your time and for your written submissions. If you have volunteered to send any additional information to the clerks, I ask you to make sure that you do that as quickly as possible. I suspend the meeting to allow a changeover in witnesses and the committee members to take a break.

The Convener

We will now hear from our second panel, which also focuses on the workplace parking levy’s potential environmental, social and transport impacts. I welcome Sue Flack, policy adviser from Transform Scotland; Alexander Quayle, senior policy officer from Sustrans Scotland; and Stuart Douglas, smarter choices, smarter places manager from Paths for All.

We have a series of questions. I ask that you catch my eye if you want to come in, unless a committee member asks you a direct question. Please do not look the other way when you are answering a question; that way, if I feel that you are going off on the wrong path, I can call you back. Richard Lyle will ask the first question.

Richard Lyle

I have quite a lot of industrial estates and business parks that are not served by buses in my constituency. How do you respond to concerns that a workplace parking levy would penalise those working in premises not served by adequate public transport or linked to cycling and walking infrastructure?

Sue Flack (Transform Scotland)

The levy would allow for the provision of revenue over time to improve public transport in places where it is poor. The council that is involved with those industrial estates could talk to the people there, including the employers and the employees, about what the issues are and devise a plan that could be implemented with help from the levy itself, acting as a revenue support for that plan.

The plan might involve increasing the frequency of buses, putting on new services or adding cycle routes, or it might just be about highlighting a path that is not very well lit and in need of safety improvements. All those things can help people who feel that they have no other choice but to go by car. If such a plan were put in place, it would soften the impact of the levy; it would also mean that people have a choice. It would improve the situation for workers because they would have better choices about how to get to work.

Alexander Quayle (Sustrans Scotland)

Local authorities would take a long time to implement such a policy. For example, Nottingham’s levy was agreed in 2009 for implementation in 2012. There would need to be a reasonable lead-in period, to allow local authorities to work with premises in order to make a change.

Local authorities would be able to set the geographical scope—and we have seen from the workplace parking levy debate that that can be quite a controversial matter. Local authorities would want to ensure that people have choices and alternatives, which would inform the scope; local authorities would not want to exclude whole areas when it comes to access for workers.

The Convener

Does Stuart Douglas want to come in?

Stuart Douglas (Paths for All)

No, I am fine for now.

John Mason

I have a couple of questions. One follows on from what Richard Lyle was asking about. Is there enough in the bill about where the money should go? On the issue of improving public transport, Nottingham improved the trams, the train station and the buses. Is there enough in the bill about that? Would the provisions enable the funds to go to where they should go?

Sue Flack

The bill says something about how the money should go towards improving transport, which leaves open a wide range of options. The form of transport to be funded would be in accordance with the strategy of the local authority, as I understand it. It is important that such strategies be widely agreed and consulted on and cover the points that Richard Lyle raised. It would be important to have a jointly prepared transport strategy, so that the people whom the levy would affect in whatever way buy into as much as possible.

On John Mason’s other question, there is enough in the bill, but further guidance might help local authorities that consider introducing the levy—I do not know whether the committee has thought about that. I also advise Transport for London and, in London, the mayor—not the Government—is responsible for approving levy schemes. Transport for London is providing guidance for the London boroughs; when the Department for Transport considered the levy for England and Wales, it intended to produce extra guidance, but that was never published. That is another option.

John Mason

The bill would allow local authorities to work together. Should regional transport partnerships have a role?

Sue Flack

Regional transport partnerships could have a co-ordinating role—they could act like Transport for London and produce guidance for councils in their areas.

Stuart Douglas

We need variety; there is not one answer. Local authorities must have the powers and the strategies; they must understand the issues and what the best solutions are. The approach needs to be as wide as possible.

Alexander Quayle

There are definitely benefits to co-ordinating regionally, although Sustrans would not support workplace parking levies having to be implemented with regional agreement—they should proceed on the basis of a single local authority’s decision.

As for whether the bill says enough about what the funding should be for, it is vital for the funding to be ring fenced—we agree with that proposed provision. We appreciate the flexibility that, although the levy would raise revenue funding, it could be used to match fund the active travel grants that Sustrans administers on behalf of Transport Scotland, for example.

I was taken with the idea at last week’s evidence session that the funds that are used to run the levy could support officers working with workplaces to ensure that they comply and to help them to work with their employees to offer alternatives. That valuable tool should be included.

John Mason

It has been suggested to us that, if workers had a choice and thought that they would be impacted by a charge, they might park off site, which could cause further congestion near a school or another workplace. What is your reaction to that?

Sue Flack

The local authority that promotes the levy is likely also to be responsible for dealing with parking on streets—although there might be boundary issues—so it can control such parking. Nottingham City Council has a programme in which it goes round all the areas where parking has been displaced because of the levy—where people have parked outside rather than on site—and controls those streets. Charging mechanisms have been put in place on streets that are suitable for parking and residents’ parking zones and similar measures have been established in other places to prevent parking on streets.

When a boundary is involved, the authority that promotes the levy must work with its neighbouring council. Nottingham City Council has done that at the edges of its area.

John Mason

So that situation is fixable.

Sue Flack

It is fixable with a programme of on-street parking controls or charges, which can be funded from levy receipts, with no additional cost to an authority.

Alexander Quayle

Displacement could be an undesirable consequence, but it is fixable, to use John Mason’s word. Local authorities in Scotland have available to them the powers to do that; in a way, the levy is timely, as the bill would iron out some parking enforcement issues.

Peter Chapman

When you say that the situation is fixable, you mean that you will prohibit drivers from parking on streets, too. That means using the stick heavily against drivers.

We have to recognise that many people have no other option to get to work on time than to use their car. You are saying that you will make it increasingly difficult for that to happen. You really are using all the powers that there are, including charging them if they park at their workplace, and if they decide to park on the street, you will stop them doing that, too. You are really putting up two fingers to anybody who is driving a car.

The Convener

I am not sure that that is an expression that I will allow in the committee.

Peter Chapman

I withdraw that expression.

The Convener

I think that Alexander Quayle understood the basics of that question.

Alexander Quayle

I drive a car, I cycle and I walk. I think that most people in this room will use public transport, cycle, walk and drive at different times, too. I have no interest in upsetting or offending any group of travellers.

I am not talking in absolutes. I am saying that, if there is problematic displacement—an overspill of cars that is blocking carriageways or making it dangerous for people to walk along pavements—local authorities have a suite of tools available to them to address that. I am not trying to imply that local authorities will be painting yellow lines on every street as soon as a workplace parking levy comes into effect. I am not talking in those terms.

Sue Flack

I used to work at Nottingham City Council, where I led on the development of the levy. We found that there were already controls in many places—in other words, there were already issues that needed managing that were not related to the levy.

Richard Lyle

You worked at Nottingham City Council. Why is it that, out of the hundreds of councils in England—there are far more there than there are in Scotland—only Nottingham has brought in a levy?

Sue Flack

As well as helping Transform Scotland, I now work as a consultant advising other authorities on the levy. Lots of authorities are progressing a levy. They waited a while—I think that they wanted to see what would happen in Nottingham and whether it had longer term implications. Having waited five years, a number of authorities started to prepare for a levy. I can name some of them if you like.

Richard Lyle

Name them.

Sue Flack

They include Reading Borough Council, Birmingham City Council, Leicester City Council, Oxford City Council and Cambridge City Council. Transport for London is providing a supportive environment for the London boroughs, with the London Borough of Hounslow leading. Sutton Council, Merton Council and Camden Council have also started preparing for a levy. Those are all the authorities that have done something and committed money. Lots of others are talking about a levy but have not committed any money and prefer to keep their proposals secret.

The Convener

We heard in the previous evidence session that the levy would place a large financial burden on businesses. Concern was expressed that smaller businesses that have very low margins and lack access by public transport because of their remote locations would face a huge financial burden. Is it wrong to be concerned about that?

Stuart Douglas

The joy of the legislation is that it would be up to local authorities to look at where a WPL would have the greatest impact and where it would not be needed. Remote businesses require people to drive to them. One suspects that they would not be subject to a levy because local authorities would make smart decisions about where to apply it and where not to apply it.

The Convener

So the local authority would draw a line around a small business and take it outwith the area. For example, if such a business was on the edge of Aberdeen, the authority would draw the line inside so it would not be affected.

Stuart Douglas

It would go back to what issue the authority was trying to resolve and whether the levy was being used to reduce congestion or to reduce pollution. The authority would need to determine which parts of the geography of its city were most affected.

Alexander Quayle

First, I would not necessarily recommend a workplace parking levy as an effective policy in a rural area. The benefits are much more likely to be seen in urban areas that have a critical mass of congestion.

I am not expert enough to talk about the business mechanisms for businesses in remote areas with low margins, but it is absolutely the case that there are externalities to car travel that are not being properly picked up, such as the effect of carbon emissions on air quality, and I think that a workplace parking levy is a fairly small mechanism to rebalance that.

The Convener

We also heard that unless the levy was paid by the driver of the car, it would not change anyone’s behaviour.

Sue Flack

That misses out a stage. I disagree with what the previous witnesses said, in the sense that employers have a role to play in managing the travel—including the car travel—of their commuters. I do not think that it is an either/or scenario whereby either the employer pays the levy and nothing happens by way of change of mode or the employee pays it and there is a mode change.

What happened in Nottingham is that employers reduced the amount of parking that they provided because they acted to reduce their liability. They took on some of the responsibility for managing their employees’ car travel. Basically, they did travel plans. We had already done a lot of travel planning before the levy came in, so employers were used to the process. As Alex Quayle said, there is an officer whose job it is to go round and advise on travel planning and managing parking.

Employers have a role to play in reducing their liability—even the members of the previous panel would have said that. In reducing their liability, they can better understand how their employees need to get to work and they can talk to the local council about how to improve the alternatives. It is a circular mechanism.

Pauline McNeill

I am interested in the fact that you seem to be saying that although local authorities would apply the levy to employers, to get the modal shift, it would have to be applied to workers.

Are you aware that Transport Scotland’s figures show that 50 per cent of those in the two lowest income groups use their car to get to work? Are you concerned about the fact that, if the levy is applied to workers, the lowest-paid workers will be penalised? There is plenty of evidence that many families are already struggling, and a £400 a year charge could lead to people losing their jobs because they cannot afford to get to work. Does that concern you?

Sue Flack

It would depend on what the charge was. The amendments would allow the promoting authority to decide what the charge was. It need not be £400—it could be another figure.

Secondly, the charge would be imposed on the employer. The employer, not the employee, would be the liable person, and they would not have to pass on the levy to the employee in the same form, so—

Pauline McNeill

Can I stop you there? Is it your view that the levy should not be passed on?

Sue Flack

No—whether it was passed on would be up to the employer.

Pauline McNeill

Is it your view that it should be passed on?

Sue Flack

I am just following what the legislation says.

Pauline McNeill

I know what the legislation says, but you represent organisations that are arguing for a modal shift. Do you not have any concerns about low-paid workers?

Sue Flack

I do have concerns. You did not let me finish my point, which was that although employers could pass on the levy, they would not have to pass it on in the same form. They could charge lower-paid workers less or nothing, and they could charge higher-paid workers more. That is what Nottingham City Council does.

The Convener

Pauline, I think that that is the closest that you will come to getting an answer on that.

Stewart Stevenson

I have a wee supplementary question for Alexander Quayle.

There is already a differential charge for different vehicles. I pay £10 a year in road fund tax for my little hybrid car, whereas if I had a Range Rover, I would pay £450 a year. There is already a mechanism for discouraging people from having large emissions footprints. Is that a better or a worse way of dealing with the issue than introducing an entirely new tax and all the things that would come with it?

Alexander Quayle

I have no objection in principle to a stepped way of implementing the tax so that people on lower incomes would pay less.

With regard to whether people are already paying enough because of road tax, since 1987, the cost of motoring has gone down by 10 per cent in real terms, bus fares have gone up by 7 per cent and rail fares have gone up by 5 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year that holding back fuel duty since 2010 has saved the average motorist £850 and the average van driver over £2,000. In the same period, the average train season ticket price has gone up by £694.

The point is that the least socially desirable modes of transport are being prioritised in a flat way, regardless of people’s capacity to afford them. There is no means-tested train ticket for those who have to get the train to work. The workplace parking levy is a relatively small financial mechanism that can rebalance that situation.

Stewart Stevenson

Okay. I will move on to my substantive question.

One aspect of the discussion on the levy is that of relieving the potential burden of paying the tax that might transfer from the employer to the worker. Health service workers have been identified as an example in that regard. In the evidence session with the previous panel, it was said that we could end up exempting virtually everybody because a case could be made for that.

How should exemptions be operated, especially given that the workplace parking levy is a levy on the employer? How should we end up doing the exemptions? We have heard in evidence that Nottingham City Council has done some work on that. How could we make an exemption system work in a way that makes sense?

The Convener

Who would like to go first on that?

Sue Flack

If I was personally implementing a workplace parking levy as God, I would exempt only operationally necessary vehicles. I think that there is a blip in the legislation with regard to those. The people on the earlier panel did not mention such vehicles. However, a big issue in Nottingham was fleet vehicles, suppliers’ vehicles and those of people who come to fix things. In past days, it would have been the people who came to fix the photocopier, but these days it would be information technology contractors and the like—in other words, people who occasionally come to park in a workplace. They are exempted in the Nottingham scheme, and I agree with that. I would also exempt blue badge holders. Personally, though, I would not exempt NHS workers, social workers, teachers or anybody else.

Stewart Stevenson

Do forgive me, but you referred to exempting vehicles, whereas the workplace parking levy is a charge on employers. It is not a charge on vehicles or workers, although I accept that it might end up being passed on to workers.

You gave the example of vehicles that are used by people who service photocopiers, but I presume that a parking levy would apply to them only when they were at their base. I do not think that there is a workplace parking levy associated with providing spaces for people such as that, or is there?

Sue Flack

There is. It is in the amendments. It is the same as that in the England and Wales and the London legislation. The legislation has provision for charging for those vehicles while they are using parking spaces.

By the way, a guy who was here earlier talked about social workers, but social workers will not be charged if they are out all day. The charge applies only when the parking space is occupied by a car.

The Convener

Sorry for intervening, Stewart, but I want to get more understanding of that. If somebody is in and out of the office because they use a car to do part of their work and they are charged only when they use the workplace parking space, who will record when they are in and out of the office?

Sue Flack

The employer has to do some work.

The Convener

If a company had 900 employees, for example, and the employer was not sure who was in and who was out, would somebody have to be in the car park recording who was in which space?

Sue Flack

The employer can use technology for that. What happens in Nottingham is that the employer declares how many spaces are required and they are shared by the people who work there. If social workers or other people are out at different sites, the employer declares a smaller maximum number of parking spaces that are liable for the levy, and then people share as they come in and out.

John Finnie

I am grateful to Ms Flack for that description of a version. It is not the version that is covered in the amendments.

Before I ask my main question, I want to pick up on Mr Quayle’s point about Mr Douglas’s evidence on relative costs. The Paths for All submission states:

“UK public policy has seen fuel duty remain constant for the last nine years, costing the UK Treasury approximately £10 billion/year.”

For the avoidance of doubt, I note that the figures come from the RAC Foundation. Do either Mr Quayle or Mr Douglas want to comment on that? The cost seems to be significant, so if we are going to use the Barnett formula—

The Convener

I am sorry, but I am totally confused. Is fuel duty part of the workplace parking levy?

John Finnie

We are talking about the relative costs of different modes, which the witnesses spoke about a moment ago. I am adding evidence from a witness, convener, which is why I have mentioned it.

Alexander Quayle

I gave my statistics a moment ago. It is evident that the trend for however long we measure it—whether for the past 10, 20 or 40 years—has been for motoring to be made cheaper and public transport to become more expensive. It is especially important that the issue is considered now, at a time when we need to tackle air quality issues and congestion, which are major costs for bigger cities in Scotland.

Earlier this month, the First Minister declared a climate emergency, but continuing to make motoring cheaper will only encourage more people to drive.

Stuart Douglas

At the same time as fuel duty has remained static, car ownership has continued to increase. What do we get? We get more and more congestion, which slows up traffic, affects business negatively and impacts on public transport. Buses get snarled up in congestion and become less reliable, so fewer people use them. Bus services are reduced, so more people drive and the roads become more congested. It is a vicious downward spiral, and the cheaper we make car driving, the steeper the spiral becomes.

John Finnie

A response to the survey from quite a number of folk was that travel infrastructure should be improved before the workplace parking levy is introduced, thereby giving workers a viable alternative. The creation and publication of a local transport strategy would be a prerequisite for any local authority that was planning to implement a WPL. What should be the relationship between the strategy and implementation?

Sue Flack

The linking of the workplace parking levy to the strategy is really important, as is linking the funding that the levy can bring to the strategy implementation. There is no point in having a workplace parking levy unless the money can be spent on stuff that will be useful for people. It is really important to link the two, and consultation should be done on the local transport strategy as a package.

Nottingham borrowed from the flow of workplace parking levy revenue to implement early public transport improvements. Lots of people said that they would like to have the public transport improvements first, before the levy started, so the promise was made that things would be delivered quickly. There was delivery within three years of the workplace parking levy coming in, and that included the tram, so it was pretty good going.

Not having the promised alternatives in place is unfair to the people who have paid the levy. Nottingham kept the levy low for the first three years to reflect the fact that the alternatives were not there.

Alexander Quayle

A workplace parking levy should be one aspect of a basket of measures that are implemented at the same time—improvements to bus services, better public transport all round, better provision for active travel and help for workplaces. The inclusion of those things in the context of a local travel plan is a strength of the amendments.

We talk about the levy having potential to be used as a way of raising revenue, but because the income from it would be ring fenced, we can talk about that as being money for investment. Therefore, we can already look at the shopping list of things that would give people who drive to work a cheaper, more affordable alternative way of getting to work.

Stuart Douglas

The Scottish Government is investing significantly in infrastructure. There has been great investment in the rail infrastructure recently, and through its work with local authorities, Sustrans is delivering substantial improvements to cycleways throughout the country.

One of the findings from the smarter choices, smarter places programme that I run, which is also funded through Transport Scotland, is that people do not know about the infrastructure that exists. We worked with local employers on a workplace project in Edinburgh, and through that we increased awareness of the quiet routes in the city by more than 27 per cent. A host of other projects that we have run have demonstrated that people do not know about the infrastructure that exists. Although I accept that the infrastructure needs to improve, I suggest that it is improving and that a bit of knowledge would help people’s understanding of that.

Maureen Watt

As you know, workplace car parking spaces are already subject to non-domestic rates. Is it fair that they should be subject to an additional tax in the form of the workplace parking levy?

Alexander Quayle

I am not familiar with the system of charging for non-domestic rates, but it is true that the cost of externalities such as the effect of motoring on carbon emissions and air quality is not being accounted for.

Sue Flack

The difference between the workplace parking levy and business rates is that, because the WPL is a levy, the money from it is entirely ring fenced for transport purposes. The levy is additional to business rates, but it is a transport levy, whereas the income from business rates is used for other purposes.

I think that it is fair for workplace parking spaces to be subject to a levy because, as Alex Quayle said, business rates are not intended to cover the costs to the community of car travel and the costs of those parking spaces. Therefore, it is fair to have another charge that has that purpose.

Stuart Douglas

I add that there is no such thing as “free” car parking. The creation of car parks costs money. The infrastructure has to go underneath them, which means that more pipes and more cabling are needed. That has extra costs. Car parks create more flooding, so the water pipes need to be bigger—wider and longer—to deal with all the run-off water. Having those big lumps of tarmac and concrete creates additional costs that have to be met.

There is also the opportunity cost. A witness on the previous panel mentioned that her company has a 1,200-space car park. How many other opportunities could that land be used for? Cars sitting on a piece of tar is not good use of land.

Jamie Greene

I am not quite sure how to respond to that comment. The fact that there are people who use those cars to get to their place of work and earn a decent living is a valid reason for them to use the parking places outside that place of work.

Stuart Douglas

The people who are not car users have to pay for that, because the cost of the car park infrastructure is absorbed by the business and passed on to customers and people who buy its services. Everybody has to pay for the people who choose to drive.

The Convener

I would like to clarify something. In the past, when a business got planning permission, it was always demanded that it would have X parking spaces relative to the office or business space that was being used. There was a Government stipulation that, if an office was being put in by Aviva, for example, X car parking spaces had to be provided. That was a requirement. Should that Government demand to put in spaces be ignored and is it right to tax businesses for those spaces?

As an aside on extra equipment, some parking spaces might be underneath businesses and so do not take up or use any more land.

Stuart Douglas

I accept that last point, although there are construction costs for the bit that is needed to support the building on top. I accept the point about planning. However, we have a climate emergency, and transport is the biggest cause of emissions in this country, and 60 per cent of those emissions come from private cars. We cannot accept the status quo—[Interruption.]

I am sorry. What was that?

The Convener

I say to Pauline McNeill that I do not mean to be difficult, but I am trying to allow people to express their views. You are very welcome to the committee, but you are not welcome to challenge the way in which I run the meeting.

Jamie Greene

Let us go back to the levy. Mr Stevenson talked about incremental costs that could be applied to drivers if they chose to drive less environmentally friendly vehicles. The Government could do that in a number of ways, such as through the introduction of punitive measures, low-emission zones, people having to drive a certain type of car, or increasing road tax. In some council areas, charges for residents’ permits have been increased, based on categorisation. All that is down to consumer choice—it is down to whether the consumer chooses to drive one type of car rather than another, for example.

However, the question is whether there is choice for many people to get to their place of work. As we have heard from previous panels—from people whom I respect and who represent a wide range of organisations, not just in the private sector—many people simply need to drive to work. Why should people who have no choice have to pay the levy?

Sue Flack

I understand your point. The legislation would be very flexible: it would be possible to exempt or to give a 100 per cent discount for electric vehicles, for example, so there could be the differentiation for the different types of vehicles that you talked about.

On people having no choice other than to get to work by car, I repeat that the charge is on the employer, not the employee. The employer could change how it passes the charge on to employees: it could, because it recognises that there is an issue for a set of employees, say that it will do something special for people who live in very isolated places or in places where it is very difficult to access public transport. However, it is worth remembering that if the employer does that and still wants to pass the levy on, it will charge other people higher amounts. Obviously, that has to be balanced.

I am trying to say that the employer has a role. The employer can mediate.

Jamie Greene

That is what I do not understand. It takes us back to the earlier line of questioning. In its submission, Sustrans Scotland says that the levy

“acts as an incentive to leave the car at home and travel by alternative means.”

How can it be an incentive if the employer pays? Surely you are saying that the cost must be passed on to the employee or there will be no incentive, so there will be no modal shift. Therefore, what is the point of the levy?

Sue Flack

There is another employer action. As I said, it is about reducing the amount of parking on sites. A perfectly reasonable reaction by employers is to say that they will not have car parking on site any more, which would force employees to look at how they travel. Some of those employees would travel by different modes. I do not recommend that employers do that, but it could be a reaction.

Alexander Quayle

There are two points that I need to answer. The first is about whether the levy is paid by the employer or the employee. It is one or the other in different measures, and that is something to be embraced about the policy, that—

Jamie Greene

What is your view on who should pay it?

Alexander Quayle

Sustrans Scotland’s view is that that very much depends on the local authority. It can set the charge and the area, and it can determine what the ratio would be or what ratio it would like to get close to. There is a benefit if the employer pays the charge, because that raises revenue, and there is a benefit if it is passed on to staff, because that might raise revenue and encourage modal shift. We have to hold the two things in our heads at the same time—they are both positive outcomes of the policy.

Jamie Greene referred to the Sustrans submission. Looking at the issue in the widest possible sense, the levy is likely to have a positive impact for people on the lowest incomes, who are less likely to own a car: car ownership rises as income rises. I accept that there will be people in the position that Mr Greene described, but the benefits are more likely to accrue to people on lower incomes, who are less likely to own a car and more likely to live in areas that suffer from air pollution.

I must also take issue with some of the evidence on that from the previous panel. There are pages and pages of studies that show that air pollution is worse in areas of higher deprivation, and that road casualties are significantly higher in those areas. If we reduce the number of vehicles that travel into our towns and cities through a levy, significant benefits will definitely accrue to low-income people.

Jamie Greene

By that logic, you accept that there are people on low incomes who have to drive, regardless of what type of vehicle they drive, to get to their place of work, including many of the public service workers whom we discussed with the previous panel, many of whom are on low incomes. You are saying to the committee that the measure will have a beneficial effect on them.

Alexander Quayle

I am saying that, overall, the impact of the policy is likely to be that it will have a beneficial effect, although I fully accept that there will be people who are disadvantaged by it. It is incumbent on local authorities to ensure that their assessments mean that they introduce the levy in a way that mitigates those impacts.

The Convener

I offer Colin Smyth the opportunity to come in on that point, because this might be an area that he wants to talk about.

Colin Smyth

We have asked several times, but I am not clear whether the witnesses think that the levy should be passed on to employees. You are bound to have a view on that, so what is it? If you think that it should not be passed on to employees, should we just ban employers from doing so?

Sue Flack

My view is that it is up to the employer.

Colin Smyth

So the employer should have the opportunity to pass on the levy.

Sue Flack

Yes.

Alexander Quayle

I concur. It should be up to the employer to choose. There are benefits if the employer pays it and benefits if it is passed on to the employee.

Stuart Douglas

I agree. There are significant benefits to be gained for everybody.

Colin Smyth

I want to pursue the question whether the levy is progressive. Sustrans and Paths for All say that it is progressive, because some people on the lowest incomes do not have a car. What is progressive about an amendment that says that the chief executive of a health board, who earns £100,000 a year, will be exempt, but a carer who earns only the living wage will not be exempt?

Sue Flack

That does not sound very progressive to me. The proposed legislation is flexible and there is scope to do all sorts of different things. As you know, there is scope to exempt different types of people and to charge only at certain times, so there are ways of looking at how shift workers and part-time workers fit in.

My argument is that it is down to the local authority to work with employers to find out what the issues are. If there are issues, there are ways in the proposed legislation to resolve them or, at least, to mitigate them. I agree with Alex Quayle that, if the money that is raised from a workplace parking levy is spent on public transport and active travel, that will, overall, benefit lower-paid people. Transport for London says that anything that is spent on public transport, walking and cycling benefits low-paid people—full stop.

Alexander Quayle

I reiterate that I am talking about the levy having progressive impacts overall and in the round. It will depend on how it is implemented, but I think that progressive impacts are much more likely. The example that Colin Smyth gave is, of course, unfair: I would have no qualms with changes to the proposals that made an executive on £100,000 a year liable for the cost. There are things that could be done within the proposals to mitigate such concerns.

Colin Smyth

On that point, the proposal is not that a payment should be made based on the ability to pay. You have simply said that the decision should be left to local authorities and employers. We have seen in Nottingham that the cost is often passed on. Some employers, such as the council, have an ability-to-pay mechanism, but a lot of them do not. If we are interested in being progressive, surely we have a duty in the legislation to make it clear that any payment that is made by an employee must be based on their ability to pay. That is a basic principle that should be in the legislation; it should not just be left to what a council or an employer might want.

Alexander Quayle

I think that my answer might have been unclear. I was not implying that that was in the proposed new sections; I was saying that, if the committee were minded to recommend that, Sustrans Scotland would not object to that or suggest that it is a bad idea.

Sue Flack

I am not a lawyer, but I am unsure about how that could be done within the law. If there is a way to do it, that is fair enough.

Stuart Douglas

It sounds as though that could be quite tricky, but in principle it would be all right.

Colin Smyth

It will not surprise the panel to learn that the word “rural” does not appear in any of your submissions on this issue. We have an economic system that drives jobs into congested cities—two of the organisations that are represented here today have offices that are in some of the most congested parts of Scotland. We drive people towards having to work in cities. The reality is that not everybody who works in a city lives in that city. However, in your submissions, each of you says that individual local authorities are best placed to design the workplace parking levy.

Can you tell me why the City of Edinburgh Council is best placed to devise a workplace parking levy that impacts on my constituents in the Borders, and those in Midlothian and elsewhere, who have no choice but to live there, partly because housing costs are so high in Edinburgh? They have to drive into Edinburgh and pay that levy, but not a single penny of the levy will go on public transport in their area, and, often, they have to drive from a rural area because there is no public transport.

The Convener

That was an extremely long question. I think that we got the gist of it. I ask the panel to give short answers to it.

Sue Flack

There is nothing to prevent the City of Edinburgh Council, or any other council, from spending some of the workplace parking levy outside its area. Two thirds of Nottingham’s tramlines are outside the Nottingham City Council area. That means that, roughly speaking, two thirds of the levy money is spent outside the council’s area.

Obviously, the City of Edinburgh Council should work with the surrounding councils to ensure that what it proposes to spend the levy on is relevant to commuters. The amendment has a provision in it for economic impact studies to be done. That is quite important. Edinburgh would have to do an economic impact study. That consultation would have to go wider than just the council area, and would have to show what mitigation there is for people who live outside the council area.

Alexander Quayle

Of course, there is a significant rural population that contributes to cities. For that reason, a valuable thing to do is to ensure that affordable park-and-ride facilities are available around cities that have a levy.

Stuart Douglas

It is the cities that have to deal with the congestion and pollution that are caused by commuters driving in, so it is right that they—

Colin Smyth

So, it is my constituents’ fault that they have to travel to Edinburgh because that is where the jobs are—that is where your office is. It is the commuters’ fault—is that the issue?

The Convener

That is a little bit unfair, Colin. You have had a fair crack of the whip and I think that you have made your point. Mike Rumbles has a question.

Mike Rumbles

On reducing congestion and air pollution, when we spoke with witnesses from Nottingham via videolink, we were told that the policy had not reduced congestion. Anecdotally, they said that it has reduced the increase in congestion. When questioned, they told us that there was no evidence that it had reduced air pollution either, because that had not been measured. That is the evidence from Nottingham.

Seven years after Nottingham implemented its workplace parking levy, it stands alone among all the other hundreds of councils across England and Wales in having implemented this policy. The people from Nottingham told us firmly that there are three ways of tackling the issue: low-emission zones; road charging; or workplace parking levies. Their strong advice was that we should go for only one of those ways.

In the Transport (Scotland) Bill, the Scottish Government has gone down the route of low-emission zones. John Finnie’s amendment goes down the route of workplace parking levies. Do you disagree with the evidence that we have received from Nottingham—I assume that you do, but can you tell us why? If John Finnie’s amendment is successful, we will have a dual approach, which is what Nottingham strongly advised us not to proceed with.

Sue Flack

Forget Nottingham for the moment—

Mike Rumbles

No, I do not want to forget Nottingham; I am focusing on Nottingham.

Sue Flack

I would argue with you on virtually everything that you have said, but let us forget that.

Mike Rumbles

Please, please—

Sue Flack

Let us talk about Birmingham. Birmingham is proposing to implement both a clean air zone—

Mike Rumbles

Convener, please. My question was about Nottingham.

The Convener

I will let Sue Flack talk briefly about Birmingham, but Mike Rumbles asked about Nottingham, so I ask her to address that as well.

Sue Flack

Nottingham has a low-emission zone and a workplace parking levy. When the witnesses from Nottingham spoke to you, I think that they were talking about the clean air zone, which involves a charge on highly polluting vehicles. Nottingham has convinced the Government that it does not need a clean air zone, partly because of the workplace parking levy. Nottingham has demonstrated that, because of all the work that is already being done there—lots of things are going on; the workplace parking levy is only part of it—it does not need a clean air zone. It does not need to charge highly polluting vehicles partly because it does not have very many, which is because it has done a lot of work with buses, taxis and fleet vehicles in the city centre, which is where the pollution is highest.

What I was going to say about Birmingham is that it is proposing to implement a clean air zone and the workplace parking levy at the same time, because it sees that those two elements mesh very closely together. The levy is about commuters and the clean air zone is about highly polluting vehicles, many of which are not driven by commuters—they are mostly heavier vehicles.

It depends on which location you are talking about, but there is the potential to implement more than one of the proposals. London is implementing more than one—it has a choice of four, actually—and there will be a series of different charges in London. It is possible to implement more than one proposal.

The issue is not something that Scotland needs to worry too much about at the moment. You are interested in introducing a new idea, so you should be focusing on introducing that new idea rather than worrying about one proposal on top of another.

Mike Rumbles

So, you disagree fundamentally with the evidence that we received last week from Nottingham. I will repeat what we heard, because the bill talks about low-emission zones, and that is what Nottingham talked to us about. This bill gives authority to councils to create low-emission zones. The amendment on which we are taking evidence today will give local authorities the opportunity to implement workplace parking levies. I repeat that the evidence that we received from Nottingham was that we could go for low-emission zones, road charging or workplace parking levies, and the advice that they gave us was to implement only one of those.

I do not understand why you seem to disregard the evidence that Nottingham gave us last week. Perhaps the other two members can contribute.

The Convener

I will let Alexander Quayle come in, and then come back to Sue Flack.

Alexander Quayle

I agree with Sue Flack that a low-emission zone and a workplace parking levy are complementary tools that work together.

With regard to Nottingham being pressed to decide which of the options is its preferred one, the situation in Scotland is slightly different from that in England, where the proposal that tends to be pursued in relation to urban air quality is clean air zones, which are a pay-for-access system: there is a fee for entry but vehicles can still enter the zone. In Scotland, LEZs, as they are set up in the bill, should charge in a way that means that it will be prohibitively expensive to bring vehicles in. I think that diesel vehicles from before 2015 and petrol vehicles from before 2005 would be banned under the proposed guidelines.

An LEZ is not an incentive in the same way; it is about saying, “Don’t bring these vehicles into cities where there are LEZs,” because an LEZ is a tool to target dangerous air pollution. It is slightly different, in my view, from a workplace parking levy, which has as its primary objectives reducing congestion, encouraging modal shift, and raising revenue.

Air quality is a likely benefit from introducing the levy but it is probably a second-tier benefit. In the Scotland-specific context, a workplace parking levy and an LEZ are much more likely to dovetail than a workplace parking levy and a clean air zone might in England.

Sue Flack

I think that that is the answer—we are talking about two different animals; an LEZ is different in England than it is in Scotland.

The Convener

Stuart Douglas—do you want to comment?

Stuart Douglas

The other witnesses are much better equipped to answer that question than I am.

Jamie Greene

Would the witnesses therefore support a limitation on the introduction of the workplace parking levy so that it is only local authorities in cities that could introduce the levy? It does not seem to bring any huge benefit—other than being a revenue-generating tax—for local authorities that do not have either congestion or air pollution problems. Those local authorities are more likely to contain out-of-city business and industrial parks with large amounts of car parking space where there is probably more space anyway and people need their cars to get to those workplaces.

Sue Flack

I think that I agree with that. The authority promoting a workplace parking levy should have to show why it is promoting the levy; if there are no congestion, pollution or other related problems, it should not promote such a levy. The levy should be one of the tools that is used to solve an identified issue.

Alexander Quayle

I am not in a position to tell a local authority that a levy is an inappropriate mechanism in its particular case, but I agree with the sentiment that the benefits are much more likely to be felt in larger urban areas with a critical mass of people and vehicles.

Stuart Douglas

The issues that Alex Quayle talked about do not always happen just in cities.

Jamie Greene

That raises an interesting point. Should it be the case, then, that if the local authority cannot demonstrate that such a levy would have a tangible benefit on congestion or air quality or whichever other objective it has set itself, it cannot introduce the levy simply as a way of raising local taxation?

Sue Flack

I agree with that, but the package is the package—it is what the levy is plus what it will buy. If it is shown that it will not solve the issues that have been identified, there is no reason for having a levy.

The Convener

That probably answers that question, which takes us to the last question, which is from Richard Lyle.

Richard Lyle

Before I ask my last question, I have a question for Sue Flack. How long did it take Nottingham to introduce its levy and how long did it consult with its local population?

Sue Flack

Nottingham was the first so a place doing it now would not need to take as long. We took about 10 years to develop the scheme. The consultation was divided into two parts: informal consultation involving engagement with businesses, which we did for years and years, and then a formal consultation stage, which took the form of properly comprehensive consultation documents and a public inquiry.

Richard Lyle

There was a public inquiry.

Sue Flack

Yes. It was a voluntary public inquiry. The first, informal stage lasted about six or seven years and the second stage lasted about a year—that was the proper, formal stage.

Richard Lyle

We came across the phrase “workplace parking levy” about six months ago, near the end of last year. It was a throwaway remark that someone made at a committee meeting and I made a comment about it.

You heard what the previous panel said. Concerns have been raised that the workplace parking levy proposals have not been subject to any public consultation or assessment by the Scottish Government. What is your view? You said that there was a public inquiry and a 10-year consultation on the subject in Nottingham.

Sue Flack

I would not say that people have to do the same thing as Nottingham. The project there was the first one of its type.

Authorities that promote a workplace parking levy need to do a lot of informal consultation and engagement with businesses, employers, trade unions and people who might be affected. That will help them to develop the scheme. It will help to inform what the charge, the exemptions and the boundary should be, and so on. Those things should be developed through consultation with people who will be affected. Once there is a finalised idea of what the scheme could be, it should go to a formal consultation to ensure that everybody can have their say, with some degree of detail about the proposals.

The previous panel said that they could not comment without knowing what the charge would be, and they were sort of right. People need to know what the proposed charge is before they can understand the economic impact.

Richard Lyle

I will make this my final question, because the convener is looking at me. Do you agree that, in order to make a good law, we need to have good consultation?

Sue Flack

Yes.

Richard Lyle

Thank you.

The Convener

John Finnie wants to ask a question.

John Finnie

I would like to hear the panel’s views on paragraph 219 of the committee’s report on the draft climate change plan. It says:

“The Committee is of the view that demand management measures such as low emission zones and workplace parking levies have potential to make a significant emissions reduction contribution. It therefore calls on the Scottish Government to consider whether these measures should be afforded increased prominence in the final CCP.”

Alexander Quayle

The idea of workplace parking levies has been around for quite a while now and the levies have demonstrable positive impacts. My view is that they are a fairly small measure and I am not sure that they are actually as controversial as the debate in Scotland has suggested. I am not too surprised that they have featured in previous committee reports.

Stuart Douglas

Workplace parking levies are one of many actions that need to be taken, given not only the climate change emergency that we have but the obesity and air pollution issues that the country is faced with. We need to start somewhere.

Sue Flack

I agree.

John Finnie

Thank you.

The Convener

That brings us to the end of our questions. Thank you very much for giving evidence this morning.

That concludes the public part of our business. We are going to move into private session, so I would appreciate it if the witnesses and Pauline McNeill could leave as quickly as possible. I say to committee members that there will be no break.