Ydw i'r cwrs. Fyddwch gyrddwch i'n gael y gyrddwch ar y cyfnodiadau yma, gawr 20 yn 2019, ac yn dod yn fawr i'r sefyllfa ar y sefyllfa. Felly, rwy'n credu i chi ddod o'r ffordd ymlaen y cwrs yn fwyaf. Yn y gyrddwch, gyrddwch fod yn yfynol gyda'r ysgwrdd agennaethau, i chi'n gwneud y cyfnodau ymlaen yma o'r gwrsiau ddod o'r ddod o'r sefyllfa'r ysgwrdd. I welcome back the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure, Connectivity and his supporting officials. There are lots of non-committee members present and I welcome you all without naming you all to the meeting this evening. We will now move on straight on to the First Amendment. I call amendment 110 in the name of Colin Smyth in a group on its own. Colin Smyth, to move and speak to amendment 110, please. I am happy to move amendment 110 in my name, which requires the Government to regulate to create a quality assurance framework for bus operators. This is one of the issues that emerged in the evidence to the committee and indeed our stage 1 report called for the Government to look at this on the basis that it would help raise standards and drive improvement in the passenger experience. A number of stakeholders raised concerns that this bill does very little to address the challenges around patronage, however, a robust national quality assurance framework to drive up standards could make a real difference to bus usage. A nationally consistent approach to quality assurance will help to identify and address issues within the sector, be it problems with particular area, operator or aspect of the service. The amendment calls for the framework to be set out in regulations following consultation. Will ScotRail's responsibilities in this regard be set out in a contractual basis rather than a legislative one? Taking that approach with buses would create an inconsistent national picture and will fail to capture commercial services. I believe that regulations are therefore more robust whilst being relatively easy to update as needed. Perhaps in summing up, I will explain how the national quality assurance framework differs from the franchise framework and whether it will be separate or intertwine targets or replication of the targets that are in it. I am sure that it can. No-one else indicated that they wish to speak Cabinet Secretary. Cymru, Colin Smyth's amendment 110 seeks to place a duty on Scottish ministers to establish a national bus quality assurance framework and to set out how that framework will help to improve local services and the experience of users of those services. The fundamental aim of the options presented in this bill, particularly BSIPs and franchising, is to improve the quality of bus services in Scotland. The intention is that they will meet that aim through joint working between local transport authorities and bus operators and taking account of the different interventions that are required to meet different local needs. That is considered to be the most effective approach in the deregulated bus market. There are provisions for monitoring performance of BSIPs and any franchising arrangements that local transport authorities can decide to put in place. Scotland-wide measures are already in place through the Scottish Government-funded Bus User Scotland to monitor compliance by bus operators with existing legislation legislative requirements to check bus services are running where and when they should be and work with bus operators to act on complaints and share best practice. Further, the Transport and Traffic Commissioner has powers to investigate complaints and impose sanctions on operators who fail to run the registered services in accordance with any required standards. As such, while I completely share the aim of improving the standard of bus services in Scotland, I do not consider that establishing a national quality assurance framework for operators of local services would be an effective or appropriate means of improving the standards of those services. I would ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 110, but if he does press it, I would ask the committee to reject it. Colin Smyth, can you wind up and presale with drawer your amendment? Thank you. On the two substantive points raised, Jamie Greene asked about how a national framework would differ from any guidance within BSIPs or franchises. A national framework would cover all services, commercial services as well as all those covered by franchise and BSIPs. The BSIPs and franchise framework would only cover those that are within the franchise or a BSIP. At this moment in time, we have no idea whether or not there will be any franchises. Never mind how many services they will cover, so in the absence of a franchise, at least we have a national framework here. With regard to the point that the Cabinet Secretary made that there exists provisions, we all know that the existing provisions simply do not go far enough. Indeed, that was the view of the committee in our stage 1 report when we asked the Cabinet Secretary of Government to look at this particular matter. The Cabinet Secretary of State made the point that he can complain to the Transport Commissioner if a standard is not met. Well, the reality is that if the standard does not exist, there is nothing to complain about in what this amendment does today. It is to look to bring forward a national framework to drive up standards across the sector. Colin, can you just confirm please, are you pressing or withdrawing your amendment? No, I'm pressing my amendment. Okay, thank you for that. The question is, amendment 110 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Abstentions. Thank you. There are two votes for. There are eight votes against. There's one abstention and therefore amendment 110 is not agreed. I call amendment 248 in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 230. Could you indicate, Colin, whether that's to be moved or not moved? I'm happy to move amendment 248. Okay. I therefore call amendment 248A in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 230. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 248 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hand. Sorry, I've got a completely out of myself. The clarts are entirely right. Sorry. Thank you. Let me start that again. I apologise. We have 248 has been moved and I'm called amendment 248A in the name of Jamie Greene. Already debated with amendment 230 and Jamie Greene has moved it. So the question B is that amendment 248A be agreed. Something. Did you mess up? Or page by nest? Sorry. Sorry. I am correct, I think. So let me try that again. The question is that amendment 248A be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Therefore, there are three votes for. There are eight votes against. Therefore, amendment 248A is not agreed. So, Neil, sorry Colin, could you just push amendment 248A? I'll place amendment 248A. Okay. The question is that amendment 248A be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. There are two votes for. There are nine votes against. Therefore, amendment 248A is not agreed. I call amendment 249A in the name of Neil Bibby. Already debated with amendment 230. Colin Smyth is not moved. Therefore, I call amendment 250 in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 233. Colin Smyth to move or not move? Not move. Okay. Therefore, I call amendment 258A in the name of Jeremy Balfour. Balfour already debated with amendment 233. Is that to be moved? Not moved. Not moved. Okay. The question, therefore, at this stage is that section 35 and 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Right. We now move on to smart ticketing, functions and membership of the National Smart Ticketing Board. I'd like to call amendment 111 in the name of Colin Smyth, group with amendments as shown on the groupings. Colin Smyth to move amendment 111 and speak to all amendments in the group. I'm happy to move amendment 111 in my name, which adds a specific reference to the development of a national smart ticketing scheme to the board's remit. Improving smart ticketing and capabilities is critical to encouraging public transport using a particular stat and to hold the decline in bus patterns. I welcome the decision to set up this board. However, what is being proposed here clearly falls far short of the Government's previous plans for a single national multimodal smart card. Indeed, the cabinet secretary's response to this committee's stage 1 report appeared to confirm that such a card is no longer being developed. It's not enough in itself to just expand the use of smart card and contactless technology. We should still be working to deliver the joined-up ticketing system that customers want, which would allow you to buy a single ticket for a journey run by multiple bus operators and indeed multiple modes of transport. I appreciate the significant technical challenges that exist in this regard, particularly around distributing fair revenue, but we should still be working towards national smart ticketing in the long term. Therefore, my amendment simply adds to the board's remit to make it clear that looking at this issue should be one of their aims. As I understand, based on the bill before us, you'd have difficulty really knowing what the actual aim of the advisory board is. The bill certainly does not offer any leadership or direction on that role and simply says that we are setting up a smart ticketing board to look at smart ticketing, and that really does, I think, show a lack of ambition. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to speak to amendment 112 and the other amendments in the group? Convener, amendments 111, 112, 251 and 238 relate to the functions and membership of the national smart ticketing advisory board. First, with the board's functions, I recognise that this committee stage 1 report called for the board's remit to be widened to include a responsibility to bring forward proposals for a single ticketing system to apply across all modes of public transport in Scotland. As outlined in the response to that report, the Scottish Government does not believe that the significant restructuring of the market and considerable cost to public purse required to create a national scheme are justified and, as such, it would not be appropriate to give the board such a responsibility. However, I do consider that the national smart ticketing advisory board is well placed to provide Scottish ministers with advice and recommendations about the future strategic development of smart ticketing across Scotland. Amendment 111 and Government Amendment 112 both seek to address the strategic aspect of the board's role. Amendment 111 from Colin Smyth seeks to enable the board to advise the Scottish ministers on any proposal for the development of a national ticketing system. In my view, this would unduly constrain the scope of the board's strategic role and the options it might wish to pursue in connection with future strategic development of smart ticketing, which may or may not include proposals for a national scheme. There are also a number of technical issues that mean that the legal effect of the amendment is unclear. For example, the amendment would tie this new aspect of the board's role into its existing remit of providing advice in relation to the Scottish ministers' functions relating to smart ticketing arrangements. Scottish ministers do not have any function relating to the development of proposals for a national smart ticketing scheme, and nothing in the bill would enable the creation of such a scheme. By contrast, the Government Amendment 112 would give the board a standalone function of providing advice and recommendations on the strategic development of smart ticketing in Scotland. That will ensure that the board has the freedom to look at all options, national or otherwise, and to make recommendations as to how those options might be progressed. Therefore, I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 111, but if it is pressed, I would urge the committee to reject it. Moving on to the board's membership, this will be provided for by regulation made under new section 27C3 of the Transport Act 2001. Amendment 251 and 283 both seek to impose requirements in relation to regulations about membership. Amendment 251 from Colin Smyth would require that those regulations make provision to ensure that membership of the board includes representation of people who have disabilities arising from physical or mental impairment. Until those regulations are made, it is not clear what the process for appointing members of the board will be or indeed what the composition of the board should be. However, new section 227C4 of the 2001 Act obliges the Scottish ministers to consult with certain categories before making those regulations. Those issues will therefore be considered in detail with relevant stakeholders, including the mobility and access committee for Scotland, as part of that process. That will ensure that ministers are well informed as to how best to ensure that people with a disability are appropriately represented on the board. It is also worth noting that in making such regulations, Scottish ministers will be subject to the public sector equality duty set out in the Equality Act 2010. For all those reasons, I would ask Colin Smyth to withdraw amendment 225, but if it is pressed, I would ask the committee to reject it. Amendment 283 from Colin Smyth would require that regulation-making provisions about the board ensure that the membership of the board is geographically diverse. I am confident that the consultation process that I have outlined will ensure that the membership of the board is well balanced and appropriately reflects the interests of passengers, operators and local transport authorities across Scotland. I have also mentioned that there are a number of technical issues with this amendment, which means that the legal effect may be unclear. For example, it is not clear what geographically diverse means or how it would be measured or demonstrated. For all those reasons, I would ask Colin Smyth to withdraw amendment 283, but if pressed, I would ask the committee to reject it. Amendment 113 corrects a minor technical error in new section 32A3 of the Transport Scotland Act 2001, adding the word national to the title of the board in this section. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Another member has indicated that they wish to speak. Colin, I think that you have further amendments that you would like to speak to. Can I ask you to do that in your winding up, which I now ask you to do, and to press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you very much, convener, in response to the cabinet secretary's point regarding amendment 111, it restricts the remit of the board. I have difficulty understanding how it could restrict the remit because it adds to the existing remit, so it is an additional responsibility. Far from restricting the remit of the board, I ask them simply to look at the additional remit that I add to it, so that is expanding the remit, not restricting it. In terms of amendment 112, which adds to the remit, I am happy to support it because it does something similar to myself in terms of an additional remit. Amendments 251 and 283, in my name, both refer to the membership of the smart ticket and advisory board. A number of stakeholders made the point that this board must have regard for different accessibility needs, and indeed a stage 1 report from this committee stated that, and I quote, membership of the national smart ticket and advisory board should consist of a broad representation from all stakeholder groups and a particular attention paid to geographical spread and accessibility. I have sought to put this recommendation from the committee into practice. Amendment 283 calls for the regulations produced under subsection 3 to ensure that the board is geographically diverse and amendment 251 calls for the regulation to ensure that disabled people are represented on the board. I strongly believe that the board must be able to deliver for people with a range of needs and the best way to ensure their work is to be inclusive through representation that is recommended. I note that the cabinet secretary says about guidance being published around that. I would be happy having placed that on record not to move 251 and 283 on that basis, but I think that the committee's view on this matter was very clear. Thank you, Colin. Can you confirm that you are moving amendment 111? I will move amendment 111, yes. The question therefore is amendment 111 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. There are five votes, four, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 111 is not agreed. I call amendment 112 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 111. Cabinet secretary to move formally, please. The question is that amendment 111 to be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 251 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 111. Colin Smyth to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment 283 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 111. Colin Smyth to move or not move? Not moved. The question therefore at this stage is that amendment 111 is not agreed. We are now going to move on to smart ticketing contactless payment and top-up cards. I'm going to call amendment 284 in the name of Jamie Greene group with amendment 285. Jamie Greene to move amendment 284 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. Good evening, everyone. I move amendment 284. This is about smart ticketing specifically around contactless payments to our stage 1 report. I appreciate this as a small section of the bill but I think it's an important one. We did have a few evidence sessions on it and in our summing up to the Government we stated that we were concerned that the provisions in the bill went some way to deliver some improvements but that these alone would not deliver the aspirations for ticketing arrangements and schemes that are shared by the stakeholders that we met. We also said that we were concerned that the provisions and arrangements in the bill lacked ambition and that we felt that an opportunity had been missed. Finally, we asked the Scottish Government to show leadership in this area and bring forward proposals for the development of a single ticketing scheme to be inserted into the bill before it completes its parliamentary passage. I appreciate that we're at stage 2 but in the absence of any amendments from the Government we took on board the committee's comments and tried to come up with sensible amendments. 284 and 285 address two issues not exactly a single ticketing system. I appreciate the complexities of that and that will require further work but I think that there are two things we could do in the meantime. The first is on contactless payments. 284 seeks to ask ministers that via regulation will make provisions that contactless payments are available as soon as is possible to make a contactless payment for travel. It then goes on in detail to define what contactless payment is. Will the member take an intervention? Yes, I'll be too. Can I put two questions to the member? First is can he identify any place in Scotland where it is not possible to make a contactless payment for travel? Can I also ask whether he is envisaging that this must cover contactless payments for some money over the limit that is imposed by banks which is currently £30 for a transaction? I'm sorry, I had a few members speaking. The second question, would you mind repeating the essence of it? Banks impose a limit on a transaction that may be authorised by contactless means of £30. Does that mean to encompass payments that are in the excessive value or any other value that banks may set? Very good questions and it's unfortunate that the Government didn't bring forward these amendments because those issues may have been covered. On the first question, there are many areas where you can't use contactless. There are many local bus services. I'm sure everyone around this table will have local bus services where you simply have to pay by cash only and I don't want to single out any particular companies because I think there are some services that can provide contactless. There are many many others who cannot. The answer is yes, there are many areas in Scotland where you cannot pay for buses using contactless payment. I would like to see more roll-out of that. I think that's what the committee said to the Government and that's what my amendment 284 seeks to do. As I said, I think that this would oblige ministers to bring forward provisions to ensure that this option is brought forward as soon as is reasonably practical, practicable as the language is used in the bill. I'm happy to take an invention. Really just to assist Jamie Greene in this very city you cannot use contactless payment on low-theon buses which is rather a shame seeing as everyone says it's such a great service. However, in Glasgow on the first floor, buses you can. In Edinburgh, you can't. Thank you for confirming that. That demonstrates the issue. There are still many ScotRail services where you cannot use contacts. I appreciate that there is roll-out and they are making good work but I'm not aware of every single barrier being contactlessly enabled or have they made sufficient progress? Ticket machines, yes. Ticket machines but not at the barrier. No, this is contactless payment. You pay at the ticket machine not at the barrier to get through the barrier. My point is that I'm asking the Government to come forward with their plans on this. Amendment 285 is slightly different. It places a duty on local authorities rather than on the minister who may be pleased to hear. This is about top-up cards and the duty to consider a feasibility for do so. One of the things that low-theon buses do do is to consider a single card that is topped up monthly and allows travel. Can I just ask you to stop there? I am struggling. There are several conversations going on around this table and I think it's polite to listen to what other people have got to say. I would like to be able to hear what Jerry Scott has got to say. Can we try to limit the conversations? Jeremy, sorry to interrupt you. Can you please continue? Amendment 285 is about top-up cards. It says that each local transport authority must prepare and publish an assessment of the feasibility of introducing top-up cards within their local authority area. It doesn't mandate them to introduce the system but I would like them within 12 months of the passing of this bill for them to come forward with their plans on whether it's feasible or not. I don't think that's overly onerous to ask. In the stage 1 report, we asked the Government to come forward with proposals in the absence of any. I've tried to come up with some as best I can. If the Government is willing to commit to come forward with more tangible plans in the bill as we asked then I'd be happy to look at those at stage 3. Thank you, Jeremy. Mike Rumbles would like to speak. I just have a question on this one. I'm attracted by this amendment. It seems very positive and I'm interested to hear what the minister's response to it is. Perhaps there is something up, Jeremy Greene could tell me in law because that's what we're making. What does reasonably practical actually mean? I'm not sure. I'm sure you'll come to that and you can come to that in mind. Another member has indicated that they want to speak. On the amendment, 284 and 285 from Jeremy Greene seeks to insert new section 27d and 27e into the provisions about ticketing arrangements and schemes in part 3 of the bill. Amendment 284 would require that Scottish ministers through regulations make provision require that contactless payment options are available as soon as practical throughout Scotland as a means to pay for travel. Amendment 284 appears to be concerned with payment methods rather than ticketing arrangements. That aside, I agree that it's important to give the travelling public options which make it easier to travel and which promote the use of our public transport network. Contactless payment options can play a part in that. However, contactless payment is not attractive or accessible to all sections of the travelling public and it's important that it be seen as only one of a range of payment options available. It's important to note that the roll-out of contactless payment technology is already moving at considerable pace driven by customer demand and we are already seeing rapid growth in availability across all public transport modes in particular, ScotRail and all major bus operators now accept contactless payment. Contactless payment methods can also already be used to buy tickets for many journeys in other public transport modes across Scotland. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting operators in making these payment methods available where there is demand to support further contactless payment availability on buses. The Scottish Government, supported by the European Regional Development Fund, established a £1.1 million grant fund in November 2018 to provide financial assistance for the upgrade of equipment. All of this being so, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate for the Scottish Government to seek to regulate provision of public transport services so as to compel operators to provide contactless payment options. I would add that to the extent that it applies to passenger rail services such as such a requirement may be found to relate to the regulation of passenger railway services and being a reserved matter would fall out with the legislative competence of the Parliament. For all those reasons, I would ask Jamie Greene to withdraw amendment 284, but if pressed, I would ask the committee to reject it. Amendment 285 from Jamie Greene would require all local transport authorities to prepare and publish an assessment of the feasibility of introducing a travel card that can be topped up automatically and used across all forms of public transport in their area. Those amendments would require the bill that receives royal assent. It is unclear at this stage whether the travel card is viewed as a type of payment arrangement or a ticketing arrangement. It is also unclear to which public transport service it would apply in all events. It seems premature and disproportionate to seek to impose by way of this bill a requirement on all local transport authorities to conduct assessments of the kind in view before there is any evidence of a need or desire for such an arrangement in their area. That is a special soul, given that the nature of those assessments and the timescale in which they have to be completed mean that they could give rise to significant cost and resource implications for the authorities with whom there has been no consultation about this proposal. For all those reasons, my view is that the obligation that this amendment would impose on LTAs is necessary or appropriate. Therefore, I would ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 285, but if pressed, I would urge the committee to reject it. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, and I thank members for their comments and feedback. Those amendments are not meant to be difficult. They are trying to be helpful. I am trying to respond to the concerns that we heard by stakeholders at stage 1, and I am trying to put them on paper as best we can with the limited assistance that we get in drafting legislation. In response to 285, the minister's comments that there may not be a need, how will he know if there is no need or requirement in an area until they conduct some form of feasibility study? If the minister thinks that one year is too soon, that is a perfectly fine view to take. He would be welcome to amend it at stage 3 to 2 years to 3 years or, as he sees fits, that gives them enough time to do that piece of work, but if we do not ask them to do the piece of work, they will never be done. Just assuming that there is no need for it or want to do it, I do not think that it is good enough. I want us to be ambitious with this bill on smart tickering and this is perhaps one small step towards that. On the other amendment in 284 around contact deployment, I do not think for a second that this amendment is outside the competence of the Parliament. I am sure that the legislation team would have flagged that issue to me when I was going through the wording of this and I should thank them for their help in doing so. In addressing Mr Rumble's point, the phrase as soon as I guess if you compare this to 285 where we put in a time frame to do this because it was in relation to a feasibility study and I think it is something you could put a tangible dead stop on. I think that with regards to rolling out contactless payment that is something that could take some time and could take... Yes, I will get to why I think that these words are the right ones. Again, I did consult on the best wording to use. I do not think that there is any right answer sometimes with this because if you do not want to define a period but you do want to be as soon as possible you have to come up with some wording. This specific phrase is a commonly used phrase in contractual law. I could refer the member to case study the video con global where there was a dispute over what the definition of as soon as regionally practical bill is and I could spend a lot of time going into that. It is a commonly used term to mean in legal terms as soon as it is reasonably possible by the party's concern. I do not know how we could change that and make it better but I would like to see the premise of this on the bill and then with perhaps the help of the minister and his team to get the wording right on the timescale so that is helpful. I am concerned about the reason that we are practical stage so I think that if we do get on stage 2 I think that if the minister did come back at stage 3 with a specific time frame that he is comfortable with that would be helpful. On that basis I will be supporting this. I think that in other amendments as you have seen I tend not to not move amendments of the minister's uncomfortable with it. I think that with this one there is ample opportunity between now and post-recess at stage 3 to get the wording right and I hope that other members of the committee will look favourably upon what I am trying to achieve with these two amendments. Thank you. I take it that you are pressing amendment 284. The question therefore is amendment 284 will be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed that there is a division. Those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. There are 5 votes. There are 6 votes against therefore amendment 284 is not carried. I call amendment 285 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 284. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Move. The question therefore is amendment 285 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Is therefore a division. Those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. Those abstentions please raise their hands. There are 3 votes for. There are 7 votes against. There is one abstention therefore amendment 285 is not agreed. The question is that section 38 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I therefore call amendment 113 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 111. Cabinet Secretary to move formally please. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I now move on to smart ticketing in the power direction. I would like to call amendment 114 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and a group on its own. Cabinet Secretary to speak and move amendment 114. Convener, amendment 114 reflects the delegated powers and law reform committees consideration of the delegated powers in the bill. Cabinet Secretary to ask that Scottish ministers to consider amending new section 32A of the Transport, Scotland Act 2001 to include an express requirement for ministers to set out their reasoning in any decision the issue to local authorities under this section. I agree that an open and transparent process where we reassure all parties as to why Scottish ministers have issued such a direction and I brought forth this amendment to make clear that where Scottish ministers choose to exercise the powers to direct local transport authority to make or revise a smart ticketing system, they are required to set out their reasoning for doing so. I move amendment 114. Thank you. No other member has asked to speak in this debate. Cabinet Secretary I assume that's your wind-up as well. Therefore the question is that 114 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question therefore is section 39 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are. Jumping the gun there everyone or I'm being too slow. The question is that sections 40 and 41 be agreed are we agreed? We are agreed therefore we'll move on to travel concession schemes and I'd like to call amendment 216 in the name of Paulie McNeill grouped with amendment 286. Paulie McNeill can you move amendment 216 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Moving and speaking to amendment 216 and the group. This amendment changes the Transport Act 1985 to ensure that travel concessions are available to children up to the age of 18 rather than 16 but it also gets rid of another section of the act creating concessions for children up to the age of 18 in full-time education as this subsection would be no longer necessary if passed. My amendment I argue is necessary because many 18-year-olds still live at home, many are in full-time education, many are studying and not earning even the minimum wage, some are not earning at all and the minimum wage for 16 to 17-year-olds is much lower. The research that I've done depending on the geographical part of Scotland you want to look at it could be anything up to 10% of a young persons weekly pay institution. In the first year of this Parliament I set out to promote a member's bill on discounted transport for young people and, in particular, 16 and 17-year-olds. I believe that it was an injustice turning a 16 and immediately paying full fares on all public transport was not exactly the best way of celebrating arriving at age 16. In service that I've done, across schools in Glasgow in particular and you would expect 16 and 17-year-olds to support this policy, but I did test it on older teenagers who did feel that if they had got the benefit of it then they would have seen the benefit. Anecdotally, as you said to the committee that many young people told me that when they turned 16 obviously they would probably try to pay full fares on all public transport for young people, they would probably try to pretend that they were still 16 in order to still get the benefit of it, but anyway, that's anecdotally a name no names. Can the member tell me in drafting this amendment whether she looked into the fact that I think it's possible for local authorities, especially for children who are still or young people who are in full-time education but not at the nearest school but maybe going on to the college that they can give grants towards their transport? I do consult extensively with Young Scott and local authorities. That particular situation never came up, I would have to say, but I'll go on to say why I think it's needed as a national provision. You will be aware of the concessionary scheme for young people so it's an entitlement that includes 16 and 18-year-olds who are single, or one-third of real journeys. 50 per cent discount on real season tickets and, importantly, eligible island residents receive vouchers for four free vouchers a year. It's important to remember that ferries are important and are included in such an amendment. The issue of rail, I think that the discounts are actually quite poor. 16 to 25 real card means that you get a third off but you have to travel after 10am and you have to spend more than £12. You can apply this if you buy a weekly or a monthly ticket if you can afford to do that. I really think that it's time for deeper discounts and I think that 16 and 17-year-olds in particular are the ones that I'd like to focus on. I'll take an intervention. There are approximately, and it is an approximate figure, 100,000 people between the ages of 16 and 18 in Scotland. My back-of-the-envelope estimate says that this is £40 million that we're being asked to authorise per annum. What's the member's figure? I'll get to that because, obviously, I thought that the minister would get to that first but you obviously beat him to that. I would emphasise to the committee that I spent a year doing this work. I've consulted Young Scot extensively and Michael Matheson's predecessor I did have a discussion with Humza Yousaf about it. The figure in which the bills unit were prepared to accept when I submitted it, I emphasise that it hasn't gone forward, is £3.2 million a year because it's extending. What you've got to bear in mind, Mrs Stevenson, that what I'm suggesting in this amendment is that the half fare is extended so they are already paying something. All I'm suggesting is that they continue to pay the half fare up until the age of 18 of which they would pay the full fare. I point out that, in 2007, the estimated costs for the scheme that I just mentioned was £27 million to £30 million. The latest figures show that that scheme is only at £1.6 million spent so it's a considerable underspend in that budget. Now, obviously, I truly accept the cabinet secretary will say I've spent it on other things but in 2007 we were going to spend a lot more on discounted travel now that there may be some issues about reimbursement or who's not claiming it but clearly, in my mind, discounts are not that deep and the Government hasn't spent anywhere near the intended spend when we went back in 2007. I conclude, convener, by saying I think that there should be a significant policy for this Parliament to recognise the injustice of turning 18 and being charged full fares I don't think that it's a particularly expensive option but I'll obviously have debated better what the minister has to say about it. If the amendment fails, I would be asking the minister to consider whether there might be some other way in which to give 16 and 17 year olds a better deal in public transport perhaps weekends might be a halfway compromise but I certainly think that it's time to recognise is there's an injustice here and this Parliament should fix it. Thank you, Pauline. I now call Rachel Hamilton to speak to her amendment 286 and the other amendments in the group. Rachel. Thank you very much, convener. Firstly, may I say that this has been a longstanding party policy for the Scottish Conservatives and we argued that the free bus scheme should be extended to community transport and obviously community buses are an essential part of rural Scotland especially for older people and often these are only the only direct links to healthcare as well as friends, family or recreation and that is why my amendment will ensure that the Scottish Government publishes a report setting out their assessment of the costs and benefits of extending the bus pass as well as ensuring that they consult relevant stakeholders certainly. In a previous session of this Parliament we did a report into community transport and we asked community bus organisations whether they would want this and most of them said that they didn't want the kerffuffle of all the paraphernalia that was involved with it. I wonder how many bus community transport organisations the members consulted and whether they've changed their minds on that. I presume that Maureen Watt is speaking about the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee which in the previous Parliament recommended that the Scottish Government publishes a report setting out the assessment of the costs and the benefits of extending the bus passes and in my constituency speaking to community transport providers it certainly is something that would make community transport more accessible, more flexible and the whole point is to make it easier for the users to get across a rural constituency in particular. The transport secretary in the previous Parliament did highlight that there could be logistical issues with such a rollout and obviously the implications of financial cost as well. However, this is absolutely the right time and the prime opportunity for Scottish ministers to introduce the possibility of such a measure. I cannot highlight how important community transport is as a lifeline in many constituencies and people will sympathise with that in this room. My amendment ensures that that can remain accessible for those who rely on the most and this amendment speaks for those people. I ask you to support and I move the amendment in my name. You will get to move it shortly. John Finnie has indicated that he would like to speak followed by Peter Chapman. I would like to speak strongly in favour of both of those amendments. I have to say that some people seem to consider very ambitious that they are very modest amendments with declared a climate emergency. We need to absolutely change the profile of spending and it is about spending priorities. When people talk about how much will it cost the existing infrastructure that we have cost and what contribution is it making to the climate emergency. Particularly with regard to the comments about the rural communities that Rachel Hampton made, that is certainly the case and I think that there are opportunities to expand travel. Pauline McNeill's amendment clearly is very strongly ever instant. I think that we have previously heard in the committee that we need to encourage younger people to use public transport. It becomes habit-forming and certainly the arrangements that I understand that are applied in East Lothian when Lothian buses took over, they purposely targeted that audience with some of the facilities on the buses. We absolutely need to do that. We need to move to a situation where public transport is free. That people smile at that but that is certainly the case in a number of areas there and everything is about spending priorities, so strong support for both of those. Thank you. Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener. I take a different view entirely. I do not believe that we can support amendment 2 and 6 in the name of Pauline McNeill which aims to extend free bus travel for all 16 to 18-year-olds regardless of them being full-time education or not. As I argued when Labour brought the idea of free bus travel up as part of business a few months ago, that would not only be extremely costly but would not be used fairly across the country as those in rural areas with less or no services would not get to use it. My amendment would not result in free transport. It would extend the life of the half fare that you pay till you reached 18. You would still be paying. You would just continue to pay the half fare that is not free. I take the point, but it would still be a very costly thing to put in place. I still argue that, where the services are very poor in rural areas, the constituents in that area would not get the good of it and not get the same use of it. I do believe that it would be considerably more than the £3.2 million that has been proposed by Pauline McNeill. I cannot support that. In the other camp, I agree with Rachel Hamilton's amendment that has already been explained. Thank you, Peter. Cabinet Secretary, I invite you to come out, please. Amendment 216 and 286 both seek to amend section 93 of the Transport Act 1985, which enables local authorities to establish travel concessionary schemes for public passenger transport services in their area. Amendment 216 would alter the categories of persons eligible to receive a travel concession under a scheme by increasing the age limit of eligible young people from 16 to 18. Currently, 16 to 18-year-olds are only eligible if they are in full-time education. Before any changes to the categories of eligibility were fixed in the face of the 1985 act for local concessionary schemes that could be made, the costs and other impacts of such a change would require to be rigorously assessed and discussed with local authorities on whom the costs will fall as well as the other relevant stakeholders. In addition, all 16 to 18-year-old residents in Scotland are eligible for discounts on buses, rail and ferry journeys under the Scottish Government's national concessionary travel scheme for young people. As a committee may be aware, the Scottish Government has committed to assessing the impact of extending the entitlement to travel concessions offered to 16 and 18-year-olds under the scheme to all under 26-year-olds. We have taken that forward at the request of the Scottish Youth Parliament. For those reasons, I am of the view that the amendment 216 is neither necessary nor appropriate. Turning to amendment 286, which seeks to require the Scottish ministers to prepare a report on their assessment of the costs and benefits of extending travel concessionary schemes made by local authorities under section 93 of the 1985 act to community transport services. I am strongly of the view that this is not something that is appropriate for the Scottish Government to be compelled to undertake. The costs and benefits relating to provisions of local schemes will rightly vary across the country and is a matter for each local authority. I can see no benefit in the Scottish Government carrying out such an assessment and reporting nationally on a purely local issue. In my view, the amendment would introduce unnecessary central government bureaucracy and do nothing to support the community transport sector. That is not to say that the Scottish Government does not have a role in supporting community transport. We continue to fund the Community Transport Association and support initiatives around driver training and the CTA sits on the bus stakeholders group, which I chair. Through that forum and others, we are engaged with all stakeholders around implementation matters relating to the bill. I will continue to promote the benefits of community transport in those discussions. We must be clear, convener, that the requirements in both amendments place the financial burden and the plans for taking them forward entirely on local authorities. I am not aware of any engagement that has been undertaken with local authorities to consider them and taking on those additional burdens. I am happy to give way. Just for the avoidance of doubt, can the minister point to me in amendment 286 where it places the duty to fund the service if it goes ahead? I am just keen to pinpoint that. I think that what the amendment does is ask the minister to come forward with an assessment of the costs and benefits of the extension of the scheme. It seems like a fair ask to me. The amendment relates to section 93 of the Transport Act 1985, which enables local authorities to establish travel concessionary schemes. It is not the national concessionary scheme, which is the responsibility of the Scottish ministers. It is entirely local schemes that it ties into the legislation that enables that provision. I am happy to give way. Repeatedly, and I am all for localism, cabinet secretary, do you not see that there is a collective position that can be adopted in respect of 32 authorities, just as we talk about the non-trunk road network? Do you not see that, as transport secretary, you have a responsibility that extends across that? I also think that it is important that we recognise the role local authorities have and the discretion they have in order to introduce schemes in their local area where they see that as being appropriate. In dealing with those amendments that are before the committee here this evening, they relate to local authorities and local concessionary travel schemes, not a national concessionary travel scheme, which is operated by Scottish ministers. That is why it is tied into section 93 of the Transport Act 1985. That relates to local authorities, not national government. Do you think that the cabinet secretary will support a national cost-benefit analysis of expanding concessionary travel to apply to community transport? Perhaps it is something that we can bring forward at stage 3. As I have mentioned in terms of the work that we are undertaking on the concessionary travel scheme for under-26, we are undertaking that assessment at the moment in order to establish the cost associated with that. The requests that have been made by Rachel Hamilton in her particular amendment relates to his undertaking a report to consider those matters, but beyond that it serves no practical purpose other than gathering information for local schemes at a national level, which is already available at a local level for local authorities. If it was possible to bring the amendment back in stage 3 with some work between the Scottish Government that would give the power to local authorities after that gathering of evidence and the cost and benefit analysis had been done, would that not be beneficial for the whole process? If local authorities wish to do that, then they are free to do that. It doesn't need to be in this legislation in order for that to be undertaken. Local authorities can carry out that exercise right now if they choose to do so. The Scottish Government could actually conduct that, which would take the brunt from the local authorities and then the responsibility could then be taken or left by the local authorities. I'm not clear about what you mean by that. For what purpose? For a start, if we take it back to a simplistic process, the infrastructure and capital... Mindful of a conversation across the committee table when actually it should be... If we're very happy to do an intervention, I think that the cabinet secretary has been asked specifically if it was brought back at stage 3, amended to take into account whether the Scottish Government would consider that. I'm just asking you to answer that because that may clarify whether we can move on from this. I don't see how it could be changed with this amendment as it stands at the present moment because these are local schemes that are operated by local authorities. Scottish Government at a national level undertaking an assessment and cost-benefit analysis of them would serve no additional purpose over and above what they can do at the present moment. I'm not clear as to what benefit would come from and what purpose such an analysis would be for. On that note, cabinet secretary, can I ask you to press on? I think that's closest to the no you're going to get, Rachel. To conclude, I would ask Pauline McNeill not to press amendment 216, but if pressed, I would urge a committee to reject it. I would also ask Rachel Hamilton not to press amendment 286, but if pressed, I would urge a committee to reject it. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Pauline McNeill, could I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you very much. I don't accept the ministers' interpretation of my amendment. It's already referred to a national scheme and, in any case, if he was concerned about that, it is perfectly possible to reimburse local authorities as they currently reimburse for the national scheme. That is how it operates. It doesn't really seem to have addressed the question that I am trying to pose, which is the half fares for 16 and 17-year-olds. I've actually worked quite hard on those figures. I stand by my £3.2 million. I accept that they are 2017 figures. I also stand by the figure that in 2007 the Government intended to spend £27 million and your only spending is under £2 million on this concessionary scheme. That alone tells you that the discounts referred to are not deep. They certainly need reform, but, in this case, I will be pressing this amendment. I think that we are talking about extending half fares to full fares. That can be accommodated by a national scheme. If the issue is local authorities have to pay, it's perfectly covered by reimbursement of the Government. That's their job. Thank you, Pauline. The question therefore is amendment 216 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed that there's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes, four, there are nine votes. Against, therefore, amendment 216 is not agreed. Therefore, amendment 286, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is already debated with amendment 216. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. Therefore, the question is that amendment 286 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed that there's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are six votes, four, there are five votes against. Therefore, amendment 286 is agreed. There is going to be a slight change of people to assist the Cabinet Secretary. While we're doing that we are going to be moving on to another section and this section has a lot of amendments in it. The temptation, ladies and gentlemen, the temptation is for everyone to speak to every single amendment and if that indeed happens we may be still here after recess. I would ask you to be as clear and concise as possible and now that we are all in place we're going to move on to the pavement parking orders and the extent of pavement parking prohibition and I want to call amendment 115 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out that if amendment 116 is agreed I cannot call amendments 287, 288, 289, 290 and 291. Graham Simpson, please can I ask you to move amendment 115 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thanks very much, convener. Oppress amendment 115. I've got 13 amendments in this very large group but as you know, convener, I'm a very succinct man. I do not intend to speak to every single one of them and if Mr Lyle could stop sniggering we could get on with things because I'm aware that you're in here for the long haul. When I was thinking about the proposals to ban pavement parking in this bill I was thinking, well, what's the effect of this going to be if we have this blanket ban, particularly if that blanket ban is enforced and that's the key thing. Clearly, the answer is that cars will be forced off the pavements and on to the roads. Convener, I'm aware of something going on. It's being circulated, you don't need it, it's not for this amendment. Right, I'll carry on. I think when you get cars off the pavements on to the road and in many streets in Scotland, many residential streets in particular, I think that's a recipe for chaos. Streets are just going to be clogged up, you're not going to be able to move. Clearly, the bill says, well, councils can apply for exemptions. So I think what will happen is you'll get lots of campaigns springing up all over Scotland asking councillors to exempt their streets. I think that's just the reality. That will happen. Councilors will be put under extreme pressure to have their streets or their areas exempted. However, it's a serious issue, that's why it's in the bill. So I thought, is there a better way of achieving what we actually want to achieve? So the idea behind amendment 115 and all my other amendments flow from that is that you would give councils the power where they see a need to introduce pavement parking orders. So they would identify the areas where there's an issue and they would introduce a pavement parking order. Pavement parking would be banned in those particular areas. So it's really, it's flipping what is a good idea on its head and it's making it more of a local decision rather than a blanket nationwide issue. Because I was thinking about where I live, which is East Kilbride. East Kilbride was not built with the motor car in mind or certainly not the number of motor cars that we've got now. Many of the streets cannot cope with the number of cars that are in them already. If those cars are forced off pavements onto roads, the town will just snarl up. So I think South Lanarkshire Council would be loath to introduce these orders in most parts of that town. So that's the basic idea. Amendment 116 merely flows from that. It says what these pavement parking orders should do. Jamie Greene's amendment 116A adds to 116. As I say, the rest are merely technical. The other amendments are in the group of thinker from Mr Ruskell and he can justify them himself. Thank you. I therefore call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 116A and the other amendments in the group. I'll start with Graham Simpson's amendments. I did have a conversation with Graham very early on about this issue. I think that my approach to this was twofold. One is that I had reservations about the blanket nature of this, so it's a nationwide ban and then we're trying to seek exemptions and exceptions and exemptions being permanent streets that are exempt from the rule and there's a lot of discussion and we'll get to that around what is exempt and how in the process that you have to go through to do that. Then there's the issue of round exceptions to the rule which I think are the more short term ways in which the prohibition does not apply in the circumstances around that and again we'll have no doubt a healthy debate around those prohibitions. On the issue of double pavement parking, I think from day one, one of the things that I noticed is we were talking a lot about it in committee and a lot about it in the Parliament but not a lot of people outside of here were talking about it and when you did start to talk to them about it you got a lot of, I think, quite cautious feedback about this that yes, there is an issue that we need to address. I think, hopefully, there's a collective cross-party consensus that we need to address the issue of inconsiderate parking. There are many ways we could do this. The bill proposes one way and I think Mr Simpson and Ernest proposes a different way and that's to make it easier for local authorities to address problems where there are problems but not create problems because, in effect, I still have reservations and I think some of my later amendments on this part of the bill will try to address some of those around the issue of if you simply create a prohibition and move all the cars on to the road it will cause absolute chaos in so many local authority areas. Now, since we've started doing this, I drive around and look at streets where there's pavement parking. Look at how much pavement is next to it. Look at the circumstances and the reasons why those cars are on the pavement. I think a small, very small percentage of them are being inconsiderate because they're lazy and they don't want to park anywhere else. I think the majority of them are doing it because they feel it's the right thing to do or they haven't got any choice because there's nowhere else to park. I think we do need to have a serious consideration to these amendments. It is a different approach, it does flip it on its head but I think we do need to be realistic about the cause and effect and the consequence of what we might pass if this blanket approach goes through. I'm willing to support the amendments in Grimmsom's name on the premise that I like the approach and I think the pavement parking order is a sensible approach to this. It may not get a majority support of the committee and in doing so therefore I've taken a parallel approach to try and accept that if there is a blanket ban and prohibition then we will try and clear that up and make it as pragmatic as possible and I think you'll see for my amendments that I've done both. I'm happy to give away. Thank you, member, for giving away. I mean he kind of touched on what I was going to suggest. I mean would he then suggest accept that my amendment in the next group, I mean not one, would give you a compromise because as he says he, the bill and Grimmsom are kind of at opposite ends if you banned parking except there was 1.5 metres of pavement left, would that not be a compromise? I know we'll get to that grouping and we'll debate that because I have some amendments to that effect as well. The answer is yes, I will support your amendment Mr Mason. I think it's a sensible compromise but I still think taking that approach in itself will create problems and I'll explain those problems when we get to that grouping because 1.5 metre minimum as dictated as a national standard will still create localised problems and I have other amendments which will seek to address that as well. In terms of other amendments, I don't want to talk about that grouping convener, my own amendment in this grouping 116A refers and tries to add to 116, it's fairly self-explanatory but I would like to also briefly mention Mark Ruskell's amendments because I know he's going to speak after me. I'm quite sympathetic to amendments 287 and 288. I think it addresses this issue of parking on a cycle track and I believe it includes a definition of that. I tried to submit a very similar amendment and was told that Mr Ruskell had done so already so a more of a similar frame of mind of that. I'm not sure about 289 because it includes a verger planting adjacent to the carriageway. The whole point of this is to try and free up pavements and I think that if there's a sloped carriageway with a glass verger next to it, it's unlikely that pram users or wheelchair users will be on that anyway. I think that's maybe a superfluous amendment and I'm willing to listen to 219291 because I'm intrigued to see what the cause and effect of those will be and take a view on it perhaps afterwards. I hope that's been helpful for members. Thank you. Jamie Mark Ruskell, can I ask you to speak to amendment 287 and the other amendments in the group, please? Yeah, thanks convener and I'll probably just limit my comments to my own amendments that I'm moving in this group, which really aim to end the scourge of inconsiderate parking on three types of infrastructure that are relied on by walkers and cyclists. Amendment 287 and 288 concern dedicated cycle tracks and it does, as Mr Greene has already alluded to, pick up on an issue that was raised by the committee in its stage 1 report, which is that cycle tracks are often blocked by parked vehicles and I certainly know from when I go out cycling with my own children that a parked vehicle in the middle of a cycle track is a real hazard. It can force a cyclist into lanes of fast-moving traffic or into the dangerous door zone of the parked vehicle with obvious consequences if the door is then opened by the driver or the passenger and it doesn't take too many incidents like this, of course, to put somebody off cycling for life. Those amendments would ensure that cycle tracks are brought into the same regime as pavements and drop kerbs that are being put forward by the Government and that inconsiderate parking can then be enforced by council wardens. Amendment 289 considers the status of verges. A pavement cycle track may be separated from the carriageway by some form of verge, usually grass or other plantings, but we all know that verges can get wrecked or rutted by poor parking while parked vehicles also obstruct the line of sight for pedestrians trying to attempt a safe crossing. I hope that part four of the bill implicitly includes verges in the definition of footpaths and footways. However, it could be that this is not explicit enough and so I am proposing this amendment to hopefully bring that clarity from the Cabinet Secretary. Lastly, convener, my amendments 290 and 291 cover the school keep clear yellow zigzag lines, perhaps a matching amendment to Mr Greene's white zigzag line amendment. Brothers in arms here, brothers in arms. A standing agenda item I would suggest, convener, every single parent council meeting that I've ever attended, there's always a disbelief at the fact that these striking yellow signs are only advisory and cannot be enforced. So this completely defeats that purpose, which of course is to ensure that school entrances are clear from obstructions, creating a safe environment for children and parents entering and leaving school premises. This amendment would allow parking wardens again to enforce these obvious zones. Amendment 291 makes it clear that these lines should only be enforced when they're actually needed, which of course is during the school day, not at other times, not at weekends, not at school holidays. That's it. Thank you very much, Mark. I'm going to call on Colin Smith, followed by Sandra White. Colin. Thank you very much, convener. I look at Graham Simpson's amendments. Effectively, the amendments in his group attempt to remove the ban on pavement parking, frankly, and replace it with an enabling power for local authorities to issue a pavement parking order banned for certain streets or areas. That would fundamentally undermine I think the aim of this section of the bill. Pavement parking is a significant hazard, particularly for people with mobility issues, wheelchairs and visual impairments, and it should be banned outright with a limited number of exemptions. I could only imagine the challenges we would have if we had one local authority having a ban on pavement parking and a neighbouring local authority not having a ban would require signage in each area to make that clear. I think that there would be huge challenges there. In terms of amendments 287 and 288 by Mark Ruskell, I add in cycleways to the parking prohibition set in this bill. I look to this issue as well, and my understanding in the feedback I got because I believe that parking on cycleways should be banned, but the feedback I received was that it was already banned under the 1984 road sacks in effect if we should not be duplicating legislation. If that is not the case, I would be very supportive, but my understanding is that it is already banned. There was an issue around whether or not that should be extended to include advisory cycleways because I think that the ban is on mandatory cycleways. All the feedback that I received from cycling groups is that they were reluctant to have a ban extended advisory cycleways because of unintended consequences of reducing the number of advisory cycleways that local authorities would pursue. My understanding is that mandatory cycleways have a ban already, and hopefully the cabinet secretary could confirm that, because that would determine whether or not those particular amendments were required. In terms of amendment 289, which clarifies that the ban covers any versions of plant that are adjacent to the carriage, we have no problem at all with that one. I am not aware of that already being banned. In terms of amendment 290, again, I have a lot of sympathy for this one. It is like concerned with how you define entrances to schools, how wide that would be. If it is simply where they have the advisory zigzags at the moment to coin a phrase, then I would certainly be supportive of that. I am just thinking about the practical implication of it and what areas it actually covers, and I am sure that the minister will cover that, but I am very sympathetic to that particular proposal. Thank you very much. I did say Sandra White, and I am apparently told that it should be committee members first, but I will stick to my word today if you would like to go first, followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you very much, and thank you committee for allowing me to be here today. I will not reiterate what Colin Smyth has said, but I absolutely agree with every word that he has said. Graham Simpson's amendments as well, meaning that they may be, would actually, as Colin Smyth has said, he was well not having a, you know, payment parking bill. I have worked for many years on the payment parking bill, and I thank committee and the Government as well for adopting it into the transport bill. It is indicative, I think, of society to look after all of its members.  I think we've got to remember, I'll speak to Graham Simpson in this particular one. There'll be an educational aspect of this as well. I've never set out to make a punitive part of the bill. I thought it should be educated to people to let them know that, basically, pavements are for people and they're not for parking. I'm sympathetic to John Mason had mentioned in regards to that, and there will be, as Colin Smith has said, there will be exemptions. There are ones just down the road here in Leith, where we know that you couldn't possibly not have a parking on the pavement slightly anyway. So there will be exemptions, but you couldn't possibly make it just by council. And for all the hard work that people have put into this, disabled people, etc. It would be a travesty if we decided that this would not be here for everywhere in Scotland, rather than just being by council. So I speak to Graham Simpson's one. Jamie Greene, I take on board what Jamie Greene is saying as well in regard to certain exemptions, and I think they will be looked at in the bill, and in Matt Ruskell's amendment in regard to Psycholines particular. I think that's something we should be looking at, but it is the law, as Colin Smith says. I would just appeal to the committee that there's been a lot of work put into this particular part of the bill, and I would ask them not to support to Graham Simpson's amendments. Thank you. Mike Rumbles followed by Richard Lyle. This is about ending the scourge of obstruction of our pavements by people who should know better. Surely you want to send a message right out there that people should not park on our pavements, obstructing people who are disabled or young mums and dads with prams, et cetera. I think that what Graham Simpson does is completely reverse that and ruins that message out there. If you take, for example, the current law, the current law says it is illegal to drive on our pavements, and yet we all see cars parked on our pavements. How did they get there? Magic? They drove on it. We want to send a clear message to people that this is not acceptable. I have to say that there are exceptions allowed—the minister is allowing them— in the bill for areas where it's proving very, very difficult and our local authorities are best used to make that decision. It's really important that we send a national message out. Do not obstruct our pavements. In a way, I will in a minute, I'm glad that John is trying to get in there. I think I know what he's going to talk about, because he's actually going to—no, he's not, right. I don't know what he's going to say. I was going to say, he referred to it earlier, but in his next section he's got an amendment on the same principle of leaving a gap. We'll discuss that when we get there. The point that I'm trying to make is that we have to be really clear this—and if we start messing about and turning the whole process of those sections back to front will be in trouble. I can also confirm— I'm a bit concerned about Mark Ruskell's 287288, because when I questioned the minister and his staff in stage 1, when we got this, the clear message was from his officials that this is already banned. It's already illegal. So I'm certainly happy to give away it. I accept that. However, the issue is that we can only be enforced by the police and the police are rather busy and they have limited time, and therefore extending this to enable traffic wardens to be able to police it would make a lot of sense, would it not? Good point, and I'd like to see minister's response to that question and if he accepts that, then I certainly will. I'm just referring back to stage 1, that was the evidence that we received. Unless it changes, I'm a bit concerned about that. OK, and I'll leave it there. OK, so Mr Mason's comment will remain a surprise until he gets a chance to bring it up. I've got Richard Lyle and then Jamie Greene. Yeah, basically my view, I agree with Mike Rumbles at the end of the day, I believe that pavements should be for people and cars should go on roads, but the problem is, we all see it happening, and we actually see many cars parked on pavements which are... I know that Mr Mason is going to come in and say, well, there are some pavements that are big enough to do that, but I'll refer to the comments by the Guided Dog Scotland. These amendments would remove the new provisions on pavement parking from the bill entirely, restore the old system where councils are only able to restrict pavement parking street by street. People complain that councils don't have any money, so we're going to force councils to look at each individual street and send out an official, maybe have a consultation, maybe into a situation where the system tackling the problem, pavement parking, prohibitively, would be expensive with extensive requirements for possibly signage and consultation. Basically, that would leave pedestrians at risk from pavement parking. I want to see people parked on the street. I don't want to see them parked on the pavement, and as far as I'm concerned, I can't support Mr Simpson's amendments. Thank you, Mr Lyle. Jamie Greene, Jamie. I hear what everyone's saying, and I think it's under why I made a very valiant point about the efforts that have gone into including this in this bill. As I said from the beginning, there's a lot of cross-party support and no-one for a moment is suggesting that we want drivers to block the pavement. All the points that Mr Graham was trying to make, and others have alluded to, is that it's not quite as simple as moving all these cars off the pavement onto the road tomorrow. It will cause accessibility issues on many, many roads, and I won't name them all. We'll talk about that later. I could be here all night because we all have streets in our constituencies and regions where, if you simply move the cars from the pavement to the road, it will block the road. I would politely ask Mr Graham Simpson to withdraw all the amendments in light of the direction that the committee is taking. I thank him for raising the issue around the practicality of delivering sensible policy. When we get on to the exemption process, we will hopefully make sensible decisions on the nature of what an exemption process looks like. In response to the point about, well, this is going to create a huge workload for local authorities. The reality is that they're going to have to go through the exemption process on a street-by-street basis anyway because they're going to have to go through their local authority areas and work out which streets they want to exempt, and that by default will create a process that currently doesn't exist. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretary, I'd ask you to make your comments now. Can I just say that once you've finished your comments and Graham Simpson has finished his comments, and we have looked at this amendment, we will be taking a pause, which I think some members are ready for Cabinet Secretary. I take your hint, convener. The aim of the pavement parking prohibition is to introduce a clear national ban on pavement parking while still enabling local authorities to consider whether to exempt certain streets in their area from that ban if the local authority considers it appropriate to do so. I will, yes. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for giving me a way to come in so quickly, but you did use the word exemptions, which was the word that I was going to come in on Mike Rumbles on. Do you actually think that councils will have exemptions because they'll be just like TROs, they'll be a hassle factor, they'll be a cost factor, they're under pressure, do you not think there will really hardly be any exemptions? I think the likelihood of the system in which we have it in the bill, the likelihood of a greater level of exemptions is lower than the approach that's been suggested by Mr Simpson, which I suspect will result in a much greater level of exemptions being provided. Mr Simpson's amendments 115 and 116 seek to remove this national prohibition on pavement parking and instead enable local authorities to make pavement parking orders to prohibit pavement parking in areas that of their choosing. Amendment 118 removes the power to make exemption orders as these no longer need to be needed or needed in absence of a national prohibition. Amendment 119 makes provision about the forming content and procedure associated with pavement parking orders. Amendment 120 makes provision about the traffic signs required where a prohibition is in place under such an order. Amendment 11121 and 143 make provision about exemptions and penalty charges respectively. Amendments 146, 148, 150, 153, 155 and 161 make a number of technical and consequential changes. Amendment 116A seeks to require local authority to assess the effects of creating parking prohibitions before making a pavement parking order. While those amendments to be accepted, local authorities would have a discretion as to whether a pavement parking prohibition is introduced at all in their areas, rather than being a country-wide prohibition as proposed in this bill. I cannot support this fundamental change in the aim of the pavement parking provisions within the bill. It would not provide a uniform national solution to this difficult problem, which this Parliament has been considering for some time. Instead, this could lead to a fragmented approach where one local authority may ban pavement parking, whereas others could choose to retain remain within the status quo. That would simply confuse motorists and frustrate pedestrians. 73 per cent of those who responded to the Government's improved parking in Scotland's Scotland-wide consultation supported a ban on pavement parking on all of Scotland's roads. The figure rose to 76 per cent when only responses from public bodies were considered, which would indicate that there is clear support for a country-wide ban as originally proposed. Turning to amendments 727287 288 289 290 291 raised by Mark Ruskell, the amendments in this group raised some important issues and worthy consideration yet are unnecessary due to existing statutory provision. Amendment 287 288 seek to include cycle tracks within the pavement parking prohibition in section 42 of the bill. Both are unnecessary because in terms of section 129 296 of the Road Scotland Act 1984, parking a motor vehicle on a cycle track is a criminal offence. The decriminalised parking enforcement regime under the Road Traffic Act 1991 gives the Scottish ministers the power on an application made by a local authority in Scotland to make an order designating the whole or part of that local authority area as a special parking area. Where such a registered destination order is in place, the criminal offence in relation to parking on cycle tracks ceases to apply. Instead, a civil penalty is payable. As such, there is already existing civil and criminal enforcement options in regard to parking on cycle tracks, which those amendments would cut across. Amendment 289 seeks to include verges and other planted areas adjacent to the carriageway in the pavement parking prohibition in section 42 of the bill. However, verges are more properly regarded as being part of the road itself, as the verge is included in the definition of road for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That act allows the Scottish ministers to make traffic regulation orders and temporary traffic regulation orders prohibiting parking on roads, which, as mentioned, include the verge. In terms of section 5 and 16 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, contravention of a traffic regulation order or a temporary traffic regulation order is again a criminal offence. Additionally, the reference to other planting adjacent to the carriageway in amendment 289 is not defined and its meaning is potentially ambiguous. To the extent that other planting is properly regarded as being a verge, the power I have already described allows for that to be prohibited under a traffic regulation order. Amendment 290 and 291 are unnecessary, as provision of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2016 already combine to make stopping or parking on a school entrance a criminal offence. Amendment 290 seeks to include schools, et cetera, entrances from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday during the school term in the definition of pavement in section 424 of the bill, thereby including them in the pavement parking prohibition during the period specified. Amendment 290 and 291 defines its school entrances so that the term is to be construed in accordance with schedule 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2016. Item 10 of part 4 of schedule 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2016 prescribes a road marking indicating a school entrance. This can be combined with a no-stop sign which may or may not prescribe time periods when it applies. The combination of the school entrance marking and road marking being in place and section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which makes an offence not to comply with traffic signs, meaning that failure to comply with the road marking indicating no stopping on a school entrance is already a criminal offence. Amendment 290 Does he have any insight as to why those yellow lines are not being enforced at the moment, because he describes the TSRGD and the various options that are available. Why is it that this is, as I said, a standing agenda item at every single parent council? In short, ignorance. People who park in these areas are being ignorant in disregarding the safety of children and other road users. The issue that you are seeking to address is a matter of enforcement which is an issue for the police to address. If I look at my children's school there was an issue there and additional enforcement measures were undertaken over a period of time in order to get the message across, did it improve the situation? Yes, it improved the situation. The bottom line is that those who are seeking to ignore it at the time when there was no police officers there are simply being ignorant to the risks that they pose as a result. Therefore, I ask Graham Simpson not to press his amendment in this group and Jimmy Greene not to press amendment 116A. I would ask Mark Ruskell not to press amendment 287, 288, 289, 290 or 291. However, if those amendments are passed, I would ask the committee to reject them. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Therefore, I will now call on Graham Simpson to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment, please. Thanks. I will now call on Graham Simpson to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment, please. Thanks, convener, and thanks to the committee for all your comments. I think I need to make it clear that I'm not against what you're trying to achieve. I was just suggesting a different approach. I do take what Sandra White said and please be assured that I'm not against what you're trying to achieve. It was just a more flexible approach. I do fear that particularly if you would expect this law to be enforced, you would hope that any law is enforced. If this law is enforced, I think that councils will be queuing up at your door, Cabinet Secretary, to have exemptions. That's what I think. However, I've heard the committee's comments and I will withdraw every single one of these amendments, all 13 of them. I can read them all out if you wish, convener, but I'm sure you've got a list. No, just that one being withdrawn. One on five, and everything else. Thank you for listening to what the discussion has been carried out. I'm now gratefully going to suspend the meeting. Oh, sorry. I've got to go through the full procedure to say. As Graham Simpson wants to withdraw amendment 115, does any member of the committee wish to object? No-one wishes to object. Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. On that note, I'm going to suspend the meeting for seven minutes. Seven minutes. I reconvened this meeting at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee on the Pavement Parking Prohibition, exceptions including the width of vehicle intrusion on the pavement. I'd like to call amendment 4 in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would like to point out that if amendment 129 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 130, which is to be debated in a subsequent group. And amendments 131 and 303 in this group due to pre-emptions. Jackie Baillie, can I ask you to move the amendment and speak to all amendments in the group? Please. You can indeed, convener. I'm very grateful for the committee's time. I'm very aware that you've been considering amendments last week from the crack of dawn this morning and also this evening, so I hope not to detain you for any length of time. A photograph has been circulated really because I didn't want my lack of descriptive skills to this amendment, but I will attempt to describe it very clearly, convener. Amendment 4, and I will limit my comments to amendment 4, is very simple. It is designed to prevent cars with extended bodywork, essentially large boots from overhanging pavements. If you accept the principle that pavements should be kept clear of cars because of people with visual impairments, people in wheelchairs or people with prams, then these larger than normal cars, which may be parked entirely legally, convener, they are nevertheless causing an obstruction to pavements. I am conscious that some of the members of the committee may have cars similar to this. It was pointed out to me at the break. I do not intend to pinpoint who they are. This isn't the worst example. The picture shown is indeed quite a wide pavement. I am happy to take an intervention. Exactly. Thank you, the member, for giving way. That is exactly the point that I was going to make. She mentions cars, but what I have seen in my constituency, the bigger problem would be vans. I have seen vans where the distance between the rear wheel and the rear of the van can actually cover the whole pavement. Would you agree with that? Yes, I entirely agree. There are vans, there are mini trucks, there are trucks that I think would probably fit better in Texas in downtown Dumbarton, but it is a range of vehicles that would be keeping within the law because they are not parking, their wheels are not on the pavements, but the overhang is so significant that it causes quite a bad obstruction. I have not given you the worst example in the photograph, but this was an issue raised with me by a local resident in Dumbarton, hence the amendment here today. I hope that the cabinet secretary might find his way to even agreeing it. On that note, we will move on to the next amendment from John Mason, which is amendment number one, and I ask you to speak to that amendment and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My sole amendment and it happens to be number one and I only intend to speak about it, although I think the reason I put this amendment in is similar to what Graham Simpson has been speaking about, which is that, frankly, we just do not have enough space in our towns for what we would like to do, and we would all ideally like a full pavement, we would like cycle lanes, we would like parking space, we would like enough room on the roads, and there just is not enough space for all of these things. My aim with this amendment was to provoke a discussion and to seek some kind of compromise and to see if we could get some balance. Even just this week, I had people at my surgery in a new estate where the roads tend to be quite narrow and they were complaining that a car was two wheels in the pavement, two wheels in the road, and even then the bin lorry could not get past on the road. If that is the case, putting the car fully on the road makes things even worse. The aim of this was to provoke a discussion. I do fear though that I am not sure that any of the solutions that any of us are putting forward are really going to solve this, because I think that the point that the cabinet secretary made recently that it is all very well having rules if they are not enforced does, I am afraid, come to the key issue. I continue to be concerned that the exemptions are not likely to happen and that councils will tend to avoid exemptions. In order to find out what the councils thought, I wrote to all 32 councils and I am very grateful that 21 of them actually replied and some of them were quite brief but I had some extremely good ones and, for example, Dundee was very thorough in some of the points that it made. They said that there is not enough road space to accommodate vehicles, enforcement is limited in certain areas and they take the point that the council said that they got the point of why you would have a 1.5 metre exemption but that does create problems that are too simplistic in many ways. For example, they say that it could restrict the council's ability on how to manage parking in its own areas. They feel that they should have more discretion and, in fact, in some cases, they currently allow vehicles to park fully on the pavement if there is sufficient room and they might want to continue to do that. On other areas, the 1.5 metres would not be enough especially if it was a town centre where there is a lot of extra pedestrians and all the rest of it. They raised questions like where are these vehicles expected to park. All in all, I put this forward to create a discussion. Others have taken part in that. I suspect that a simple 1.5 metres is not the answer but I wanted to have the opportunity to raise those points anyway. Thank you, John. I now call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 292 and other amendments in the group. Jamie. I do have a lot of amendments in this group. It's just the way they've been grouped together. I hope members will bear with me as I try to get through them. I think that the ones that are consequentials are technical amendments. I'll skip over because this whole section looks at the issue of exemptions and exceptions. I think that it's an important part of the pavement parking bit of the bill. I'll start with the point that John Mason made. We've looked at different approaches with this. A number of members have submitted amendments very similar amendments about having a minimum pavement width. I think that it's an admirable intention. I'm keen to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about the Government's view on this. The idea of putting in either a default minimum which thereafter allows some form of on-pavement parking is how Mr Mason's amendment reads provides a form of compromise and sensibility to the parking at all provision. However, if the application of 1.5m is a nationally dictated standard that local authorities must adhere to as part of the exemption making process, I think that by default that will create some of the problems that members have concerns about. That's why I'm not supportive of having a 1.5m minimum pavement width. It's just that if we put it down in the way that it's presented in the bill, then it will create a rules-based system that means that no exemption can be granted unless it's 1.5m. There are lots of examples where the pavement may be 1.45m or thereabouts or nearly 1.5m. However, the local authority still feels that it would like to allow some form of pavement parking to wheel pavement parking to, as alluded to, there is nowhere else to put the cars. That is a genuine issue. I was not aware of the work that was done right into local authorities. That's a great piece of work because they are the people that have to deliver this. They are the people who have to enforce this. They are the people who have to go round their local authority areas and work out where the exemptions should be and do what's right for their communities. If the nationally decided exemption rule of 1.5m is that we are telling them what that exemption process should look and feel like, and I want to give them the flexibility to make localised decisions based on the roads that they know best, their local roads, knowing the circumstances. It's not just about the width of the pavement or indeed some of my minutes about the width of the road. It's more complex than that. It's about what else is around those streets, and it displays to if they are banned from parking on the pavement. That is a real issue that we haven't given enough time and credence to. I'd love to read some of the responses from local authorities. I hope that the Government will work with Mr Mason and the committee to come up with a solution because I don't think that 1.5m is the solution but I think that there is a solution out there that we can find. I hope that the bill team will reflect on that. Briefly on 292, it basically says that a footway may not be specified in the exemption unless it has the characteristics specified by ministers. My problem with that is that it's the ministers who will dictate the characteristics of what a pavement should look like before an exemption or it should be given. My thought from day 1 on this is that local authorities should make that decision, not the Scottish ministers laying down guidelines to make into account before making that decision. That's why I want to remove that. Amendment 293. I contemplated flipping it on its heads that rather than having a minimum pavement width as the first piece of guidance, you then have a minimum road width as is often the case in other pieces of regulation. I've looked at many of the Government's other regulations around road widths and planning guidance. Originally, I had a number in there in this amendment, but we spoke to the legislation team. Having a prescriptive number as to preserving a minimum road width to allow the safe passage of emergency vehicles was not a wise idea because every road is different. Indeed, there are different rules attached to different types of roads as well, so that wasn't sensible. I have changed this amendment slightly to basically just say that the prohibition cannot apply because the cars cannot be moved from the pavement to the road if that creates a scenario where the road is not wide enough to get an emergency vehicle down. Ultimately, that's what this is about. It's about normal access through our roads. If the cars are moved from the pavement to the road and that's made that road so narrow that you cannot get an emergency vehicle through it, then I don't think that the prohibition should apply to those roads. That's what this amendment seeks to do, hopefully. I'm sure that we'll get some feedback on it. It's not going to solve the problem of what we do about where the cars go, but it is going to at least give local authorities a bit more flexibility on where the prohibition applies or doesn't when it comes to exemptions. Some of the other amendments around that are technical. There is an amendment there on signage, but I take on board the conversation that we had earlier. I'll be keen to hear in amendment 296 where the Government is going to propose that the exemption signage is standard ouser or where each local authority will have to devise its own format for that. The conversation behind rural emissions zones is very similar and I take on board the feedback that was given that there will be Government issued guidance on signage so probably not move that one. There are some other amendments around that as well. I think that another important one is 298. I'm sorry that there are lots of amendments in this group, but that is what it is. Adds an additional power to local authorities. It says such other purposes as a local authority may prescribe. This is to do with exceptions. Exemptions and exceptions are two different things. I've got a number of amendments that look at different scenarios where I think that an exception should apply. I hope that you'll give these some thought. The first one is that the local authority may prescribe the circumstances that an exception should apply. I would like to think that local authorities, when using this power, will do so in a sensible manner that they won't create exceptions simply to get around the legislation, but they will make sensible decisions about what scenarios they may wish to give an exception relevant to their local authority. It's simply an enabling power in that respect. Amendment 300. I had a lot of consultation as many of us did with stakeholders around not just pavement parking but double parking prohibitions. The idea that there should be adequate, I would say, leeway given to people dropping off people who are vulnerable, disabled or have impaired mobility. As it stands, I know that we'll get onto the 20-minute rule later in the debate, but I would like to see on the face of the bill that the prohibition does not apply if the vehicle has been used to pick up or drop off someone who is disabled vulnerable or has impaired mobility. Again, I'm happy for the wording to be altered as to make it as competent as possible. It's an important point to make. You need to give drivers the ability to pick up elderly relatives to drop off people with disabilities. It may take some time. They may have to double park. I think that we have to accept that that's normal. They're not trying to be difficult. I can't see anywhere else in the bill that allows them to do that. I think that's why I would like that exception on the face of the bill. The other one is around taxis. Again, used for the collection, picking up off people. It's to give them a reasonable amount of time to do so in their normal course of business. It doesn't mean that the tax driver can double park and go and do shopping. It has to be during the course of picking up and dropping off passengers. Again, I'd like that on the face of the bill. There are other minor amendments. There isn't going too much detail on whether an officer is wearing a uniform or not. There is one odd one around an emergency situation where an exception is applied. The bill says for no longer than necessary for that purpose. I think it's quite hard to predetermine how long an emergency situation could take all night. It could take days to resolve a situation where someone's had to abandon their car or not. I'm just trying to take that bit out but leave it in elsewhere in the bill. The final one of importance is 308. I think that this gets perhaps to the nub of it where I'm trying to get to an end point where local authorities determine whether the prohibition applies or not. What I want to do is give local authorities the final say and the final power when it comes to both exemptions to take a view, either in the long term, in the case of exemptions or in the short term, as the officers at the scene dictate. Let's give them the power to make sensible decisions on the circumstances that they're faced with and not pre-empt that by setting down the ground rules. I'll leave it there, I won't talk to any other amendments in the scoop, I appreciate it's been a long grouping. I think that the exemptions and exception angle of this bill is really important Thank you very much, Jamie. I now call on Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 117 and any other amendments in the group, Colin. Thank you, convener. I'll start with amendment 4 from Jackie Baillie, which I think is a very welcome addition to the bill, in a way that causes a vehicle to overhang on to a pavement. An effect has exactly the same effect for pedestrians as a car parked on the pavement and therefore I think it's common sense that we should include this in any ban. In terms of amendment 117 in my name, it clarifies that exemption orders should not be issued in instances where a car parked partially on the pavement is likely to leave less than 1.5 metres. The 1.5 metre figure is there, but I think that it does almost the opposite of what John Mason is looking to do. I recognise the need for exemption orders to allow local authorities to exempt streets but I do not think that exemptions should allow drivers to obstruct the pavement. 1.5 metres is widely agreed as a reasonable minimum with needed for pedestrians including those with prams and wheelchairs and this amendment would ensure that this would have to be left under any exemption orders. If cars are allowed to continue to obstruct pavements and ultimately this ban is not delivering on its purpose, I think that we need to be absolutely clear about this on the face of the bill. Those amendments in effect look at the pavement as something for pedestrians, as opposed to where the cars may go, which is frankly a matter for the road and not the pavement. Amendments 124, 126, 128, 134 and 138 by Mike Rumbles, I think that, likewise, all clarify that the various exemptions set out in the bill do not apply in instances where less than 1.5 metres is left and that I fully support those amendments. Amendment 129 in my name would remove the exemption for deliveries. Amendment 139 would require the Scottish Government to bring forward regulations serving a similar purpose. Members will recall that at stage 1 major concerns were raised by the committee about the workability of this particular exemption in the bill. Given the risk that this will end up acting as a loophole, I have concerns about including this in the face of the bill. However, I recognise the need for some form of exemption along those lines for deliveries for this reason. I think that either this or preferably an alternative should be set out in regulations so that, if there are unintended consequences, it can be more easily changed than it would be if it was on the face of the bill. I think that that was a point yet. I will take that on with me. That gives me a perfect opportunity. I am sorry. I would say that, in my haste to try and speed things up, amendment 303 takes out the 20-minute exemption, sorry, the 20-minute cap which I see Colin Smyth supports. I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry. The only way that the law單 of." important iszelf Dios. gyda ran yn mynd i ddau'r llwyledd? Mae'r wrthgrff mwyaf. Mae yna brydd yn y cvern oeddangos yn yn 1900, amwa, ac mae'n achyfl yn geilbryd i'r pethau Buddyscrife o'r bwysigau. Rwy'n gwrs hwnnw, yn cyfrifiwyd ar gyfer hyn, datblygu pam ardal 1100 o mwyliadau o'r bwysigau, a yna gwahanol eich bod yn cyfrifiwyd i'r bwyllfaen, felly mae'r cwer o'u findw roi amgwysigio ar gyfer hyn. Mer intentional—not at all—and just means I would probably repeat what I've just said, sadly convener. I think that what Mike Rumbles was saying is, to support what he was saying, amendments might be, may be, to my own amendment, make a few suggestions on ScottishGMC Drive, which might be straightened up compared to the drafting, the original bill agreement can be tightened up. Amendment 139A requires a vehicle not to be left unintended. That doesn't mean that the driver or even next to the vehicle, at all times, has to be simply within the vicinity. In effect, the means of the driver is away from the vehicle while in the process of making a delivery. That is, for example, acceptable at the top of a building, where the driver is delivering However, if they were away from the extended period of time at a completely different location from where they were delivering, then this would not be acceptable. Members may have concerns about the language here, but this language is used in a similar context in the Greater London Council General Powers Act of 1974, so it is a recognised way forward. Amendment 139b clarifies that this exemption should not allow vehicles to obstruct a pavement at 1.5 metres was widely agreed as the minimum amount of space that should be left on a pavement in this amendment. Amendment 304 and 305 make the same additions to the existing text in the bill, but they would only be moved if the particular section of the bill was not removed, so if my previous amendments were not carried, effectively removing the section of the bill, what I am suggesting here is an alternative, which is to amend that section of the bill. It would be very much my preference to remove the section entirely and put it in regulations, but if the committee does not support this, I believe that those amendments will help to strengthen that particular section of the bill. Amendment 139 by Mike Rumbles, like amendment 305 in my name, also looks to prevent exemption orders being issued where they will leave less than 1.5 metres. If the committee chooses to keep this section in place and amend it, I am happy to support either 1.3.1 or 3.0.5, I think that's it. Thank you, Colin. Mike Rumbles, can I ask you to speak to amendment 124 and any other amendments that you wish to in the group, please? You can, convener. Sensible compromise, that's what my eight amendments are all about. The most important amendment of these is that 1.3.1, which cuts to the quick. Let me explain. In evidence, members will remember that there have to be exemptions to this parking prohibitions and a lot of the sub-paragraphs are absolutely right and proper that they are in there. I think that the controversy was on paragraph 6 when we took in evidence the fact that they don't apply where a motor vehicle is in the course of business being used for the purpose of delivering goods to or collecting goods from any promises or being loaded or unloaded, et cetera. Then it went on to say, and you can do that for a period of 20 minutes. I put down two amendments to which I have now withdrawn them, and only to find that Colin Smyth has put the identical amendment down at 1.29. Then Jamie Greene did the identical amendment at 3.03. I would ask them later on not to move those amendments because I withdrew mine. The reason I withdrew mine was that I'm very pleased to say that in discussions leading up to stage 2, I found the minister very amenable to logic and evidence and coming up with a compromise that I'm certainly happy with because at the end of the day it's this issue of 1.5 metres, and that is the solution. It is a generally accepted situation. What we want to avoid is blocking the pavement for pavement users, the disabled young mum's and dad's, elderly mum's and dad's, or grandparents with children in prams, et cetera, anybody that needs to get through. So when I saw the bill as it was originally intended, I thought, well, this draws a coach and horses through what we intend, and the minister recognised that, so I'll give due credit to the minister. We have between us come up with these amendments. They are in my name, but it is a joint effort, and I thank him for that. So really, the solution to this whole issue is just to vote for my amendments. Thank you very much. Well, I think the answer to that, Mr Rumbles, is we'll see when we get to the vote. Rachel Hamilton, can I ask you to speak to amendment 302 and any other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. The mayor urge members not to do a double park or park on the pavement tonight when they pick up the fish and chips. My amendment is along my theme of tonight, which is supporting community transport providers, and it does also complement Jamie Greene's amendment, number 300. I completely agree that inconsiderate parking must be tackled. However, if the prohibition of pavement parking includes community transport providers, that will have a detrimental effect on vulnerable people. Many members tonight have spoken about those people who are affected, but for specialist reasons, parking on the pavement may assist with the collection or dropping off of wheelchair users, for example. That is why I urge the committee to support my amendment to allow community transport providers to park on the pavement when it is reasonable to do so. In relation to the process of collecting and dropping off, can I finish the sentence? I thank you for giving way. I know what the point she makes about wheelchairs, disabled people and that kind of thing, and we did get evidence on that at the committee. That would not just apply to community transport, would it? It would also apply to taxis, relatives and a few other people. Would that be handled as well? I believe that Jamie Greene's amendment could take care of that, but I am not 100 per cent. That is specifically about community transport in this instance. I have Sandra White, who is indicated that she wants to speak, and I am going to add something in this section. Thank you very much, convener. I think that the first sentence that John Mason said is where those vehicles are supposed to go. I would be saying where the people are supposed to go, because that is the whole process of this particular part of this bill. However, I accept from Jamie Greene and others from John Mason that, in relation to exceptions, we certainly have to look at that. I agree entirely with Mike Rumble's amendments. I think that they are sensible. I am not too sure about the 1.5 payments, because some payments are not even 1.5. Perhaps, as Jamie Greene has mentioned, it might be too prescriptive, but we have to look very carefully at exemptions. The reason at the very beginning when he said that this has got to be Scotland-wide is that there will be exemptions that local councils will make. They will be the best people to do that. I gave an example of the colony houses, as you might call it, in Edinburgh, where it is practically impossible to park. However, the fact of the matter is that, in my constituency, some places have three or four cars that park on the pavement. It does not just inhibit people being able to walk on the pavement, but it also inhibits emergency services. I have some places in my area where emergency services cannot even get down the street because of the amount of cars that are parked on pavements and overflow. It is a double whammy for certain areas. On the whole, what you were saying is sensible. We have to look at the exemptions, however it may be. I do not know if the 1.5 is correct. In Rachael Hamilton's amendment, I would worry that he would give some people a tiny bit and take a mile. In that respect, they could be sitting on a pavement for quite a long time. The 1.5 is to leave the gap. If it is not the 1.5-metre gap, it should not be parking there. I do worry about—I am not saying what you said about the amendments—that it is absolutely correct, but would it be too prescriptive for other areas? However, local councils will make up their minds if the pavements are too small, because they cannot have a 1.5 gap. I completely understand that, and I completely support the amendments that Mike Ruggable has made. I take your point entirely. However, what is reasonable in the process of collecting and dropping off when you are embarking with a wheelchair and then reversing that process? We have to be very aware that it is a very difficult process for some individuals, particularly community transport providers, who are doing that as a service. Certainly, community transport providers are in my own area. There are two people who take the wheelchair off. I have never seen a community transport in my area, which parts on the pavement.  I have never seen that happen in my particular area, which is pretty busy with lots of various old folks homes and others. However, for me and for lots of people out there, it is about allowing people to have the right to walk on the pavement regardless. Vehicles have become so fond of their cars that they would park in their living room if they got a chance to do it. As I said at the very beginning, when Graham Simpson was there, it is not about punitive measures, it is about educating people. Some of those people that we talk about have driveways, but they park their car right in front of them. We are going on to drop kerbs, they park it in front of drop kerbs even. It is about educating people the fact that if you do not have a car and you are disabled or whatever it may be, you are as much right as they have to be able to walk about when you live as they want to drive about. I think that we have to look at very carefully that we do not basically say that the car is king, which has always been said. We have to think about the people who are walking on the pavements or attempting to walk on the pavements. However, I take on Jamie Greene's point and John Mason's point in regards to looking at the exemptions. I think that that is one of the important parts, but I am sure that that would be covered by local authorities at that stage. I think that it is now my brief opportunity. I just want to talk to amendment 4 from Jackie Baillie. She helped to provide a picture showing the overhang of a vehicle on a pavement. It is something that I have been particularly conscious of and I particularly support the principle of ensuring that pavement width is 1.5 metres. The problem is that that is not always achievable in some cases, unlike Edinburgh, where bins are on the pavement and cause obstructions. Certainly, if you cared to go down Wellington Street in Edinburgh, not far from this Parliament, you will see hedges that overgrow the edge of the pavement by probably half a metre as well, further squeezing people into where cars are parked on the edge. The other point that I would make is that when you are cycling in, one of the nice things about where cars are parked at the moment is that you do not have to go over the speed humps that forces you often into the route of cars. I have genuine concerns, not with the aspiration of what Jackie Baillie wants to achieve because I think that the aspiration is right. I think that the enforcement will be difficult and the unintended consequences for other people who are misusing the pavement will reflect purely on the cars, so I would just ask that to be born in mind. Personally, I think that the restriction that amendment 4 brings in does not actually place the obligation on the other people who are misusing the pavement to keep it clear to the 1.5 metres that I think we are all striving to achieve, so I will not be in a position to support that. I am now, if no other member wishes to speak, again to call on the cabinet secretary who, I am reliable informed, will be giving us a short response to these amendments. Cabinet secretary. So, convener, as you will appreciate with some 33 amendments in this particular group, there is a considerable amount for me to say. However, I will be speaking for less than those who have been moving their amendments here this evening in covering these issues, but I will avoid taking interventions to try and help to speed up the process if members would keep that in mind. Amendment 4, in the name of Jackie Baillie, seeks to extend the pavement parking ban to parked vehicles overhanging pavements by more than 20 centimetres. While I acknowledge the reasoning for this amendment, in my view, it goes too far. It is not necessarily the case that overhanging by 20 centimetres will give rise to access or safety issues, or indeed that it will be periodically avoidable—practically avoidable—for motorists. Options are available to local authorities to limit overhanging such as wheel stops in parking bays. Where overhanging clearly does cause an obstruction and is therefore a safety or access issue, that will constitute an offence under section 59.2 and 1292 of the Road Scotland Act 1984 and Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations 1986. I move on to pavement widths. A restriction of 1.5 metres of pavement space to enable free movement for pedestrians whilst parking under an exemption is something that the committee recommended in its stage 1 report. However, during Mason's amendment 1, one would go further, enabling all motorists to park on the pavement, provided they leave 1.5 metres for pedestrian access. The intention of this part of the bill is to introduce a national consistently enforced ban on pavement parking, subject to local discretion on exemptions. In my view, local authorities are best placed to decide where roads should be exempt from the prohibition taking account of carriageway and pavement width, road construction and access issues. Amendment 1 would fundamentally undermine this approach. Jamie Greene's amendment 292 and consequential amendment 295 seek to broaden the discretion afforded to local authorities in making exemption orders by removing the requirement that streets to be exempt possess characteristics set out in ministerial direction, which are currently being developed in conjunction with local authorities. While local authority discretion over exemptions is important, a degree of national consistency will ensure that the policy aims of the bill are not undermined through excessive use of exemptions and therefore cannot support amendment 292. Amendment 295 removes the definition of carriageway from section 43 and appears consequential on amendment 292, which seeks to remove section 432, where the term carriageway is used. However, I wonder if that is a mistake because the term used appears in amendment 293. The direction setting out the characteristics will require characteristics will include the consideration of carriageway and pavement with measurements so as to ensure that, if there is a street through which the passage of emergency vehicles could be hindered by the introduction of the pavement parking prohibition, that street can be included in the local authorities exemption order. Therefore, I do not consider there is a need for Jamie Greene's amendment 293, which seeks to put on the face of the bill a duty for local authorities to consider exemptions to allow the passage of emergency vehicles. Amendment 117 seeks to prevent local authorities from exempting from the parking ban if vehicles are parked on those pavements that would leave less than 1.5 metres for pedestrians to pass. In my view, that rigid approach does not give local authorities enough flexibility in relation to, for example, historic streets with narrow footways and carriageways where a minimum 1.5 metres could not be achieved without hindering the passage of vehicles on the carriageway. Amendment 294, from Jamie Greene, seeks to remove the requirement that exemptions orders may not be subject to conditions. While I again acknowledge the importance of local authority discretion, an ability to place an unspecified variety of conditions on exemptions is likely to undermine the consistency and simplicity of those prohibitions and, therefore, enforcement, which I consider to be a key to its effectiveness. Jamie Greene's amendment 296 and consequential amendment 297 seek to impose on Scottish ministers a requirement to prescribe in regulations the form of the traffic signs to be used in connection with exemption orders under section 43. Convener, both those amendments are unnecessary because Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, at section 641 and 2, already gives Scottish ministers a regulation making power to prescribe traffic signs, including traffic signs for exemption orders under section 43. My officials are working on the design of those signs in order that suitable amendments to the traffic sign regulations and general directions 2016 will be brought forward to prescribe those signs. Section 473 of the bill contains an exhaustive list of exemptions for the parking prohibition, where the undesirable parking is necessary in the course of performing a number of public services. In my view, the integrity of the prohibition relies on this list being strictly limited and nationally consistent. I therefore cannot support Jamie Greene's amendment 298 as it seeks to give local authorities the ability to add unlimited further exemptions to the list. The effect of Colin Smyth's amendment 299 and 304 would be that vehicles that are left unattended cannot take advantage of the exemption in section 473 or 6. In many circumstances, it would be impossible for the driver of a vehicle who those exceptions are targeted at, such as a delivery driver or a postal worker, to undertake their duties if they are not to be permitted to leave their vehicle unattended even for a brief period. In my view, this restriction is completely impractical and I therefore cannot support it. Turning now to Mike Rumble's amendments in this group, those take account of the committee's concerns about obstructing pavements when parking under the exceptions is in section 473 obstructive or dangerous parking can and does cause serious problems for everyone and puts the safety of pedestrians and other motorists in jeopardy. Those amendments ensure that there is a reasonable and practical balance between the needs of those parked in the majority of circumstances otherwise exempt under section 47 and the needs and safety of pedestrians. They put in place a clear and consistent requirement that the majority of exceptions under section 47 apply only if 1.5 metres of pavement is left for pedestrian passage. That should facilitate effective enforcement and tackle the issue of obstruction. Therefore, fully support the amendments in this group brought forward by Mike Rumble's. Colin Smyth's amendment 305 aims to achieve a similar outcome in relation to the delivery and loading exemptions in section 476. While I support the principle behind this amendment, I consider that Mike Rumble's amendments tackle the issue more effectively and do so consistently across the majority of exceptions in section 47. Therefore, I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 305. I cannot, however, support the principle behind Colin Smyth's amendment 129, 139, 139A and 139B, which seeks to remove the delivery and loading exceptions from the face of the bill and instead give ministers the power to set out in regulation a similar exception. I have listened to the views of the committee and a range of stakeholders on the exception. It is important to note the views of the road haulage and delivery industries as part of the dialogue and the need to strike a balance to allow businesses in Scotland to continue to operate whilst protecting the accessibility of our pavements. As I have already mentioned, the amendments lodged by Mike Rumble's would improve the provisions as introduced and would safeguard the accessibility of pavements. I am not convinced that there is any provision that ministers could make in regulations to improve matters further than was already set out on the face of the bill here. Finally, on the delivery and loading exceptions, Jamie Greene's amendment 303 would remove the 20-minute maximum wait period for this exception. The effect would be that a vehicle part on a pavement or double part under this exception could remain part for longer than 20-minute period. It could be shown that it was necessary to do so for the delivery collection or loading or unloading to take place. Convener, the exception at 47.6 of the bill offers a limited relaxation of the prohibition for short-term parking only. It was never intended to allow for longer term stays. If parking for extended periods is required, deliveries or loading vehicles, they should seek alternative to parking on the pavement or double parking. I have serious concerns that allowing parking for deliveries for an unlimited and unspecified period, which would be the legal effect of amendment 303, would fundamentally undermine the intentions underlying this exemption and the pavement and double parking prohibitions more generally. Jamie Greene's amendment 300 would allow anyone to park on a pavement for an undefined time period, whilst they collect or drop off someone who is disabled, vulnerable or has impaired mobility. As the amendment does not provide any definition of the terms vulnerable or impaired mobility, this exception is ambiguous and could be very broadly construed and give rise to uncertainty. On that basis, I cannot support the amendments as drafted. However, I do acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the access needs of disabled people are required to be taken into account in the operation of those prohibitions, and I would therefore commit to considering in advance of stage 3 whether any further amendments may usefully be made to safeguard those needs. Jamie Greene's amendment 101 and Rachel Hamilton's amendment 202 would exempt taxi drivers or private hire vehicle drivers and community bus services respectively from the pavement parking and double parking prohibition. I am not persuaded that it is needed for taxis or private hire drivers, or they differ significantly from the needs of anyone else who needs to collect or drop off on a street where the prohibitions are in force. Accepting the amendment would create an unjustified and potentially very broad new exemption and undermines the consistent application of the prohibition. I have some more sympathy with Rachel Hamilton's amendment in relation to community buses. However, I cannot support an amendment that would permit those large vehicles to park on pavements, in particular given the damage that they may cause to the pavement in doing so, and the safety and access problems that may arise. I am, however, happy to consider before stage 3 whether community buses should be permitted to double park in limited circumstances. Amendment 306 by Jamie Greene seeks to remove the requirement for a police constable to be in uniform when granting permission for a parking prohibition to be disapplied. I am concerned that removing the requirement for a police constable to be in uniform could create confusion and uncertainty amongst road users as to how a police constable can be identified and on what authority any direction is being applied. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment. Amendment 307 by Jamie Greene seeks to remove the requirement for persons parking on the pavement for the purposes of saving a life or responding to another similar emergency to be so part for no longer than is necessary for that purpose. Although I acknowledge the need for there to be flexibility in the provisions to enable drivers who are responding to life-threatening emergencies, there is a need for that to be for proportionality in how even an exception in this kind is applied. Jamie Greene's amendment would effectively allow a person who had part on a pavement or double part in order to respond to a threat to life or to remain so part indefinitely after the threat had been addressed. I consider that to go a bit too far against the grain of those prohibitions and I cannot support amendment 307. Amendment 308 by Jamie Greene seeks to provide powers for local authority officers to allow pavement and double parking in circumstances where they deem it to be reasonable. While reasonable local authority