Chamber and committees

With regard to the consultation, you will remember that this work has taken a number of years; it was the Scottish Law Commission that did the work and conducted the consultation, and there is probably a list somewhere of the people whom it consulted.

We should remember that this is a UK Government bill. Quite often legislation comes out of Law Commission reports, and this legislation has come out of its recommendations, too. However, I will bring in Jim Wilson to talk about the issues and what I suspect will be a need for on-going attention to be paid to licensing issues with regard to the taxi and bus industry in this respect.

It could have been better, but I recognise that this is a complex area. At the heart of this is a failure to differentiate between the technology of the automated vehicle and the rules of the road. The rules of the road are, in effect, devolved, whereas the monitoring of the technology is, as we appreciate, a reserved matter under the provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 on standards of vehicles. The issue is that now there is this bridge to the vehicle becoming the driver as opposed to what happens in the cars that you and I drive, regulation of which is reserved. The issue is the interaction with the rules of the road.

I do not want to put officials in the position of having to say where they are with that discussion. To be fair, it is a challenging area.

Yes, and that is exactly what clause 50 could lead to. I am not saying that it will lead to it, but it could.

Some local authorities have requested to increase the amounts of fines for bus-lane infringement in Scotland, which are a devolved matter. What you have described is a good example of what the UK Government bill, as it is currently drafted, would enable. If you had a judgmental view about trying to drive the market towards use of automated vehicles, for example, you might want a differentiated system, but I do not think that that makes sense.

On the point about the rules of the road, it would be easier for everybody if they are consistent and there will be a period where there will be hybrid use. There will be us, then there will be everybody else as well as user-in-charge vehicles and so on. There will be a period of hybrid activity and I do not think that it would make sense for that differentiation between rules of the road, fines and so on, to happen.

I am not saying the UK Government would do that, but it is exactly what clause 50 would enable and allow.

Yes. George Henry may want to come in on that. Is that a good explanation, George?

We will all have to consider those things as we go forward, as AI and automated vehicles increasingly become part of our everyday life. As I say, it is a journey for everybody to go on. Is that sufficiently short for you, convener?

I assume that they have, but you asked me about what their view is about clause 50 and I do not want to misrepresent them on that.

We will get the correspondence to you right away. We will check what we know about the Welsh position and if we do not know about it, we will also let you know that.

That is correct. The membership includes a chairperson, operators of different modes of transport, transport authorities, including local transport authorities—Margaret Roy is a representative—and passenger and accessibility representatives. Transport Scotland is also a member, as well as some board advisers, who are non-voting.

Whether we are talking about the current system or any other system that is provided under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, we would want to be able to implement and operate smart ticketing. There is not an interdependency, but there is a correlation.

It makes sense that we optimise what we can do, which everyone is up for. I understand that the Glasgow tripper ticket was introduced, which works between different operators and can be accessed on a mobile phone. We know from research that more people want to use their mobiles as opposed to a card for tickets. We need to ensure that there is an understanding of what technology is commonly used so that we can develop those systems in order for there to be a common interoperability, whatever the type of operation.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the addition of the new National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board to the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The board commenced operation in November 2023 and is a product of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. It will advise the Scottish ministers on topics including smart ticketing arrangements, a national technological standard for smart ticketing and the strategic development of smart ticketing in Scotland.

We intend to add the board to schedule 5 to the 2010 act. That would mean that by order under section 14 of the act, the Scottish ministers could

“make any provision which they consider would improve the exercise of”

the board’s functions,

“having regard to efficiency ... effectiveness, and ... economy.”

Adding the board to schedule 5 to the 2010 act is in line with Scottish Government policy and is considered best practice for new public bodies.

As the board is new, it is not expected that any provision will be needed in the near future to improve the exercise of the board’s functions, but this instrument would confer a power on the Scottish ministers to make such a provision in the future, should it be required.

In accordance with section 25(4) of the 2010 act, the board has been consulted in relation to the proposal to make this order. The consultation took place at the first meeting of the board on 28 November 2023, in person, with all members and the chairperson of the board in attendance. As a result of that consultation, the board confirmed that it was content with the proposal, and no other representations were received. No changes to the proposal were therefore necessary.

Adding the board to the 2010 act will have no financial impacts. I am happy to take any questions from the committee.