Official Report 679KB pdf
Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024 [Draft]
The second item is consideration of a draft statutory instrument. I welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Micheila West, solicitor, Scottish Government, and Matthew Eastwood, head of electric vehicle infrastructure, low-carbon economy directorate, Transport Scotland.
The statutory instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that it cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves it. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited, under the next agenda item, to consider a motion to recommend that the instrument be approved. I remind everyone that the officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.
Cabinet secretary, I think that you want to make a short opening statement. I always say that in the hope that any statement will be short. Over to you.
Good morning. I always strive to be brief, convener. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024, which seeks to extend the territorial extent of the trading schemes to include Northern Ireland.
In 2019, the Scottish Government declared a climate emergency and announced that Scotland would address the challenge by working collaboratively to decarbonise all areas of the Scottish economy in order to reach net zero emissions by 2045.
Transport is the largest contributor to Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions, making up to 31.7 per cent of all emissions in 2022, with road transport contributing to 70 per cent of those emissions. That is why, working with the UK Government and the Welsh Government, we passed the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023, which came into force in Scotland from January 2024. On 21 November 2023, this committee recommended to the Scottish Parliament that we approve the 2023 order.
That devolved legislation mirrored legislation introduced by the UK Government and the Welsh Government in order to create a Great Britain-wide set of mechanisms to increase the sale of zero-emission cars and vans and to reduce emissions of new non-zero-emission cars and vans. Working closely with the UK Government and the devolved Governments of Wales and Northern Ireland, we are bringing forward an order to extend the scheme to Northern Ireland. The order, which is supported by the UK Climate Change Committee, is before you for consideration.
The vehicle emissions trading schemes put legal obligations on car and van manufacturers. The zero-emission vehicle mandate sets annual targets of sales of new zero-emission vehicles, ramping up to 80 per cent of new car sales and 70 per cent of new van sales in 2030. In parallel, the CO2 trading schemes incentivise manufacturers to continue to drive down emissions from non-zero-emission cars and vans.
The UK Government analysis estimates that, through those schemes alone, there will be a saving of 420 million tonnes of CO2 emissions across the UK by 2050, with 40 million tonnes of CO2 saved in Scotland.
Since the introduction of the vehicle emissions trading schemes legislation across Great Britain earlier this year, fully electric cars now account for 17.2 per cent of total sales. There are now more than 96,000 electric vehicles on Scotland’s roads, and more than 62,000 are fully electric.
Vehicle manufacturers and charge point operators have called for clarity, consistency and ambition from Government. The vehicle emissions trading schemes have provided that clarity and, as of the end of August, in part due to increasing private sector investment and public electric vehicle charging infrastructure, Scotland has more than 5,900 charge points. We will certainly meet our target of 6,000 public charging points by 2026.
Today, we are seeking the committee’s support to extend the vehicle emissions trading schemes to include Northern Ireland, and I invite the committee to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that the order be approved.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am looking round to see whether members have any questions.
I ask that you help me out, if you do not mind. At the tail end of last week, I heard that electric vehicle sales are not going as fast as they should be, and there was a cry for the UK Government to undertake more work. Is that your feeling? I am just interested in—
I might bring in Matthew Eastwood on that. On where things are heading, there has definitely been an increase in uptake, and the scheme has assisted with that.
Anecdotally, there are differing views as to where the market is. I think that the used electric market is in a much stronger position, with the pricing for used EV and fossil fuel-powered vehicles being similar.
There are mixed messages about where the market is. I understand the manufacturers’ desire for more incentives, because that saves them from any penalties or increased charges that they would face under the schemes.
Of course, we have been the only country in the UK that has had incentives in the form of loans to help people to buy electric vehicles. I suspect that the new UK Government will do something similar. We are now targeting our loan scheme at people who live in rural and island areas, for example, and whose earnings are under £50,000.
I will not be definitive as to where the market is. I have heard different views about that, but I think that it is reasonably buoyant and moving the right way. I suspect that the issue is that manufacturers would like the comfort of it moving faster. I expect that the truth is somewhere in between.
I ask Matthew Eastwood to shed some light on the current situation?
September this year was the best-ever month in the UK for the sale of electric vehicles. More than one in five vehicles sold was an EV. EV sales in the UK outpaced EV sales in equivalent markets in the European Union, which does not have a similar scheme. Regulations in the European Union focus on vehicle emissions, which is about driving down the average emissions of petrol and diesel cars, whereas in the UK we have the VET schemes, which mandate the sale of electric vehicles. That is why we have seen proportionally greater sales of EVs in the UK compared to similar markets in other parts of the world.
That is helpful. You used UK figures. How is it going in Scotland?
We do not have Scotland-specific figures yet. We should have those shortly, and we can provide them to you. We understand that the uptake of EVs here is similar to the UK figures.
One issue that we have to bear in mind is that we think that there is an underestimate of the Scottish figures. For example, the purchasing of fleet vehicles is centred in England, and such purchases count towards the English figures. We think that the figures for Scotland are far higher. There have been recent studies to identify that, so I note there is a caveat with our figures as well.
There is a health warning on the figures. Bob Doris wants to come in, to be followed by Mark Ruskell.
Cabinet secretary, I was not going to come in until you mentioned the target of 6,000 EV charge points in Scotland by 2026. In recent months, I have been contacted by a constituent who is a wheelchair user and requires a PAS 1899 standard charging bay. I know that this is quite technical, but having Matthew Eastwood here presents an opportunity to ask about that. I believe that Glasgow City Council has installed only four such bays, all of which are at the same location. From my correspondence with the council, I am aware that is keen to do much better than that.
A barrier is faced in ensuring that charge points are not just available but accessible. Cabinet secretary, I know that you are responsible for the policy, but, given that Mr Eastwood is here, I thought that that was a reasonable point to put on the record and to get additional information on.
09:15
I will bring in Matthew Eastwood, but it might be helpful—
Sorry to interrupt, cabinet secretary. I am not so good when it comes to figures and definitions of charge points. Will somebody explain what charge point is being referred to? Is it not just a simple one? Sorry, Matthew, but you nodded when Bob Doris gave that figure. It would help me to understand that.
I think that the figure that you are referring to is public charge points. Those are charge points that are available for use by members of the public as opposed to charge points for fleet vehicles or a charge point in a domestic setting.
Ah.
I have a constituent who wishes to buy an electric car and requires the use of PAS 1899 standard charge points. The standard ensures that, for example, there is enough space in a bay to enable them to charge their car outwith the home. We are not doing very well on such provision at the moment. Is that under the Government’s radar? What is the target to improve things?
The Scottish Government does not provide charge points. We provide funding to help different public bodies, local authorities and, in some cases, homes and businesses and so on.
We have an electric vehicle infrastructure fund that is worth £30 million. Some of that funding has already been released to different authorities, such as Dundee City Council and Highland Council—I announced that earlier in the summer. Glasgow City Council has submitted an application, and that is one of the applications that is being considered.
I suspect that you might want to raise the issue directly with Glasgow City Council and ask it what type of provision it would use any such funding for. The purpose of the funding is also to generate private funding. This year, we think that about £40 million to £50 million of private funding will be put into EV charging.
Specifically on the details of the type of provision, I think that we all want to make sure that EV charging is accessible, but, in your constituent’s case, Glasgow City Council has responsibility for delivering that.
I also point out that regulations that are the responsibility of the UK Government were introduced last November, and that the regulation of EV charging is a reserved matter.
That is really helpful. I think that the Scottish Government had an official helping to develop those UK-wide regulations. It might be that the PAS 1899 standard on EV bays has only recently become live.
I am already corresponding with Glasgow City Council and I will continue to do so. If I take a step back, I note that we have 32 local authorities and a nationwide endeavour to ensure that charge points are accessible to wheelchair users and others with disabilities. The issue is how the Scottish Government will collate that information.
I believe that Mark Ruskell had a question.
I have two quick questions. One is about the former Prime Minister’s announcement on the phase-out of fossil fuel-powered cars and whether that has had any bearing on UK policy. Is UK policy pretty much predictable, with no changes in the measures that we are talking about today, or has the then PM’s announcement introduced some uncertainty in that regard?
The VET scheme would operate separately from that; there is no interdependency. The VET scheme is achieving things, which is good.
On what the new UK Government’s view is on phasing out, that is a matter for it to relay. Labour had a manifesto commitment. It will be up to ministers to relay what their position is on timing or what they intend to do with that.
On Thursday, I met two of the new UK Government ministers, including the Minister for the Future of Roads. They have to address what they might do on the matter, but we will hear from them on that; it is not my place to speak for them.
Okay, that is fine.
The other issue is about local councils and the ability of householders and businesses to connect to an EV charge point at their home or business the car or van that is sitting outside on a public highway. There are planning issues around cables crossing footways, but I know of a number of local authorities that have effectively provided a derogation to enable certain types of guttering to be put on to the footway to enable homeowners and businesses to charge at home using a more attractive, cheaper tariff. Is there any progress with councils on adopting more enlightened planning rules to enable people to use those more attractive tariffs?
Clearly, the instrument is about extending the schemes to Northern Ireland. As soon as you start talking about electric vehicles, everyone automatically switches to talking about charging, because being able to charge is what gives people confidence to purchase. I understand the connection. Those issues are live and they are current, and I have asked my officials whether there is anything that we can do to help on planning.
I had a very interesting visit to Trojan Energy, a company that is looking at pavement charging quite innovatively. As I said, there are concerns about access and disabled people, and making sure that they do not face any obstruction. That is the key point. The Trojan Energy product is flat—it is flush—but with a Hoover-like extension that you keep in your car and plug in.
There are guttering proposals and different things that can be done. Helping people who do not have driveways will be one of the key things in increasing uptake. I have asked my officials to carry out a piece of work to look very closely at that.
There is a problem when you come to a meeting, cabinet secretary: we never have enough time in our programme to see you as much as we would like. We have lots of questions.
Monica Lennon will be followed by Douglas Lumsden, and we will see where we go from there.
Thank you. I want to ask a couple of brief questions about some of the minor amendments that the instrument brings into effect.
First, the instrument allows hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to be classified as zero-emission vehicles under the VET schemes. Do you welcome that? Will it bring any challenges? You have given us some figures on electric vehicles, but do you have up-to-date figures on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Scotland?
Hydrogen is considered to be more appropriate for heavy goods vehicles. We recently published one of the outcomes from the zero-emission truck task force, and we are the first in the UK to plot where EV charging points and hydrogen stations need to be for HGV fleets. It is a mixture of both. We asked where that infrastructure should be, logistically, if we had it. That required information to be shared, which is quite a challenge given the competitive HGV market. However, we worked well with the sector. There is speculation about the use of hydrogen elsewhere, but that is less the case with cars and vans, and the instrument is about cars and vans.
Before I became responsible for this area, my understanding was that the schemes were always meant to be technology neutral, and instrument ensures that they are. As you point out, the original order would have precluded hydrogen, but the order that is before the committee includes it.
I think that we have some way to go before we see the development of hydrogen in cars and vans, which are the subject of the scheme.
I note that there is to be a financial penalty if someone provides false or misleading information under article 87 of the 2023 order. I presume that you welcome that. What resources and intelligence are in place for enforcement? Who will be responsible for enforcement?
Clearly, that is a UK responsibility. We do not manufacture cars in Scotland any more. Indeed, the former British Leyland site is in my constituency—it was a manufacturing outlet and is now a massive housing scheme. This is about sales by manufacturers. It is primarily targeted at England, and enforcement, penalties and so on will be the responsibility of the UK Government.
That is fine. I just wanted to know whether there are any duties on or implications for the Scottish Government.
No, there are no duties on the Scottish Government. The Department for Transport is responsible for administering the schemes.
That is helpful. Thank you.
I have a couple of questions. Plug-in hybrids can be zero emission or they can be running on petrol all day. How were they handled in the scheme, if at all?
I ask Matthew Eastwood to cover that.
The schemes make provision for plug-in hybrids as well. The UK Government position on plug-in hybrids is that they form part of the solution in the context of the VET schemes but also in the context of the ban on certain vehicles.
Will they be part of the ban?
I think that the intention under the schemes is ultimately to phase out the sale of all fossil fuel-powered vehicles, but there is an acknowledgement that there will be a period when they can still be sold. That will be after the point at which we will no longer see vehicles that are exclusively powered by fossil fuels sold and on UK roads.
That is helpful.
Cabinet secretary, I think that you mentioned the 6,000 target for EV charge points, and the figure of 30,000. To provide a little bit of clarity, I do not think that those include home charge points at all. The target covers all publicly available charge points, such as those provided by service stations and supermarkets, but not those provided by local authorities. Is that correct?
You are correct that the target does not include homes or businesses; it is about publicly accessible charge points. On the expansion, one of the first things that I did when I became the Minister for Transport was to launch our EV vision for charging. With the target, we wanted to ensure that we maximised private as well as public provision. The EV infrastructure fund that we are rolling out as we speak will ensure that there can be a combination. It is about how we leverage private funding into the provision of publicly accessible charge points. We are well on the way towards meeting our initial 2026 target.
I was struck by figures from the Scottish Futures Trust that show that, in 2023, there was roughly £25 million to £30 million from private investment, which it anticipates will be £40 million to £50 million this year. I opened the rapid charging provision in Dundee, for example, which obviously has a private sector lead.
I have a question about charging price inequalities. There is one price for charging an EV at home, but the cost for charging at a service station, for example, could be 10 times higher. That is obviously an issue. As Bob Doris said, you are almost penalising the people who cannot charge at home. Are you looking into that? Are any studies being done into the price inequalities?
I think that your point is about the evolution of charging. Free charging was an incentive for people, and initially there was some free charging provision. We have just talked about private investment. There is a return from charging, and there are differences in pricing in the market. If you can use cheaper energy at home, particularly at the times when energy is cheaper, that is ideal. However, how can you charge your EV when you do not have access to a charging point in your driveway because you do not have a driveway? That is why I am particularly interested in what we can do for on-street charging.
There are some innovations in on-street charging that do not necessarily use domestic pricing. I give the example of Haddington, where the first conversion of Openreach’s green furniture into accessible charging points was developed. That helps people in a housing scheme in Haddington that is near the edge of the town, as they do not have to drive into town to charge.
We can get a sea change if we can support on-street charging. Funding has already been made available to enable factors to provide charge points at tenements, so they can be provided on a collective basis. We have already looked at how we can support people in that regard.
Is there a regulatory role for Government to play in stopping people getting ripped off by EV charge points that cost, as I said, 10 times more than it would cost to charge at home?
I think that there is. However, as I pointed out, EV regulation is the responsibility of the UK Government.
09:30
I think that we are drifting away slightly. We could get on to the pricing of electricity for charging cars in the Parliament, which of course is free. I have never really understood that.
Members have no more questions, so we will move on to agenda item 3, which is a debate on motion?S6M-14319, which calls on the committee to consider and recommend approval of the draft order. I ask the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion. I am happy if you just want to move the motion, cabinet secretary.
Motion moved,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Fiona Hyslop]
Thank you. There are no contributions from members, so I fear that there is nothing for you to sum up, cabinet secretary. Do you want to sum up?
No—you have a very full agenda, convener.
Thank you.
Motion agreed to,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.
Thank you. The committee will report on the outcome of our consideration of the instrument in due course. I invite committee members to delegate authority to me as convener to approve the draft report for publication. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials. In the interests of time, I will move straight on to the next item while she and her team move on.
Local Services Franchises (Traffic Commissioner Notices and Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/229)
Item 4 is consideration of three Scottish statutory instruments. As the instruments have been laid under the negative procedure, they will come into force unless the Parliament agrees a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been lodged, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee had no comment to make on any of the instruments in its report.
I will seek views on each instrument in turn. Do members have any comments on the Local Services Franchises (Traffic Commissioner Notices and Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2024? Mark, you were quick with your hand.
Yes. I have a concern about this SSI. Obviously, concerns have been expressed about bus franchising, and I think that it is fair to say that the history of rolling out bus franchises across the UK is a pretty chequered one. I am aware that this SSI comes out of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but there is currently a petition before the Parliament from Get Glasgow Moving, which has raised significant concerns about the process set out in the SSI, particularly the role of unelected officials in deciding whether a franchise can go ahead.
I think, therefore, that we are at quite a critical point. I know that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is looking into the potential of franchising, and given that it will take significant investment just to do that preparatory work, there is a need for clarity on how this will work and whether there might be any intentional or unintentional biases or conflicts of interest within the panel that is appointed.
As a result, it is important that the committee takes evidence, certainly from the petitioners and those with experience of how similar franchising decision-making processes have been working down south, and that we reflect on that, ahead of Parliament making a decision to let this SSI pass—or not, as the case might be.
Thank you very much. Now everyone’s hands are going up. I call Monica Lennon, to be followed by Bob Doris.
I, too, am mindful of the petition by Get Glasgow Moving that is with the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and I agree that we need to take further evidence on the SSI. I certainly have a number of questions that we will not get answers to today from just talking among ourselves.
Indeed, I think that these concerns are shared more widely. I am not entirely sure about some of the things that have happened in England and I think that the legislation in that respect might have changed, but we need to try to bottom that out and understand, too, the role of the traffic commissioner for Scotland in all of this. I would therefore welcome it if we took more evidence and heard from some of the key stakeholders, including Get Glasgow Moving.
The Get Glasgow Moving petition is really interesting. Initially, it appears that it seeks to redraw primary legislation, if it were to move through Parliament and be successful. Today, however, we are looking at secondary legislation for something that was agreed by the Parliament in 2019. Therefore, although there is a connection between the petition and what we are looking at today, I do not think that it is a direct one.
The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee will have to be allowed to decide how it wishes to scrutinise and go forward with the petition. The question in my head is whether, if we do not pass this negative instrument or allow it to move forward, there will be any pathway for franchising bus services in Scotland. In that respect, I am very mindful of SPT’s ambitions to improve the bus service via franchising in Glasgow.
That said, I agree with Mark Ruskell MSP that we need more information on how all of this works. It is very reasonable for Get Glasgow Moving to seek clarity on the role of the traffic commissioner and the panel that would be appointed, and the criteria by which they might or might not make decisions.
As I say, there is absolutely a need for more information, but I just want to put on record that there are two moving parts here. The first is Get Glasgow Moving’s commendable efforts to seek a wider scrutiny role for the Parliament with regard to primary legislation that it has already passed, and the second is the secondary legislation that we are looking at and which provides a pathway to bus franchising. The two things are connected, but not directly so. Again, I would absolutely welcome more information from the Scottish Government, and it would be helpful if we could get some clarity on the role of the traffic commissioner, too.
I agree with Mark Ruskell and Bob Doris. We need to hear both sides of the argument, and it would be good to hear from the Scottish Government, too, as Bob Doris has recommended. It is clear that we need another evidence session before we move forward with this.
Now that we have talked this through, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. The SSI’s commencement date is, as I understand it, 1 November. The next evidence session that we could have would be on 29 October, which clashes with stage 2 of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, and in the middle of all that comes recess. I am not seeking to incite riot, if that is the right description, but if anyone wants to lodge a motion to annul, they have to do so before the committee’s evidence session—that is, on 28 October. I note that Bob Doris wants to speak—I will come to you in a minute, Bob, if I may.
Three members feel that more evidence is needed, and Bob Doris, too, has suggested that that might be the case. Is this something that we could deal with in writing prior to the committee meeting? That would allow us to get evidence and then make a decision on whether we need to take evidence on 29 October. Do Mark Ruskell, Monica Lennon and Douglas Lumsden, who have all made the suggestion, feel that an evidence session is required anyway? I am interested in hearing your views on that.
I think that it requires an evidence session, yes.
I agree. I know that the committee has a big workload, but I think that this is important.
I think that we need more information. However, could a motion to annul be lodged and then withdrawn, once we hear the evidence?
Indeed it could. My understanding is that a motion to annul can be lodged in advance and then not moved on the day.
I am just thinking of timetabling. I am looking at the deputy convener and whether he has any suggestions. I think that writing to people would be helpful, and it might be suitable to warn them off with regard to the meeting on 29 October.
I have no problem with taking further evidence on the issue, but my overarching concern is that if we were to annul these regulations, there would be no pathway for bus franchising. If the view is that the existing and, indeed, additional safeguard that was put into the legislation at the time is not enough—that is, the provision relating to the traffic commissioner, which was put in because of an issue with regional transport planning authorities doing this on their own and whether they would get it right—the only recourse that we will have will be to primary legislation in order to legislate for something different.
I am just mindful of that issue. There needs to be a pathway for bus franchising, which I am a fan of—indeed, that is why it was in the legislation. If there were a motion to annul and the committee were to agree it, there is a risk that we would have no pathway to franchising in Scotland. From my understanding of what we have heard, primary legislation would then be required, which I suspect would put things back by years.
The deputy convener has made a reasonable comment about the potential unintended consequences of not passing this secondary legislation. Clearly, we are at the very least going to correspond with people—we still have to establish what else we might or might not do—so I am keen to find out, perhaps from the Government, how easy it would be for the Scottish Government to listen to on-going concerns if the instrument were to be passed. After all, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee will be doing a piece of work separate from what we do. I wonder whether, theoretically, the Government could lay a supplementary negative instrument at a later date, depending on whether it feels that there has been a weight—[Inaudible.]—more about the process in relation to that.
Can I make a suggestion on a way forward and see whether it meets with the committee’s approval? First of all, I think that we should take evidence in writing. If we were going to do that, I would invite committee members to submit to the clerks any questions that they would like answers to. The clerks could then send them off, and we would give a tight timescale to ensure that we got responses before 28 October to allow people to make a decision.
We could then have a short evidence-taking session on the morning of 29 October. It would mean an earlier start, but we would probably have to get the cabinet secretary in as well as any witnesses recommended by the clerks. We could take the decision on the instrument then. As far as I am aware, we have no leeway on the final date, because the SSI has to go through the Parliament. I am looking at the clerks as I say that, and they are confirming that to me.
Are we happy with that as a reasonable way of dealing with the matter?
I have a question. How can we do this and a stage 2 on 29 October?
That is an extremely good question, and I do not know the answer to it. I do know that we have a final date for lodging stage 2 amendments—I am just looking at the clerks, who are confirming to me that that date is 23 October. I will have a pretty good idea of how long that item will take once I have looked at the groupings with the legislation team, and we can then work our way through the timings. Given the timescale set by the Parliament, we might have to do what we did last week and look at meeting while Parliament is sitting.
I know that that is not a great solution, Jackie, but I see no way round it if we are going to give the matter proper scrutiny.
I hear what you have said about 23 October, convener, but we cannot really make a decision today if we do not know what is going to happen until then.
Indeed. We are slightly hamstrung by that date, and we also do not know whether the questions from committee members will be answered satisfactorily enough so that they feel no need to have an evidence session on 29 October.
I am afraid that I see no way round it. I know that there are all sorts of problems with this. It is not my intention to put this to a vote, but we have a situation in which three members appear to be uncomfortable with things; I have not disclosed my position; and there appears to be three members who are relatively comfortable with it.
I have not given my opinion yet.
Well, I am just assuming that. It might be a bad assumption.
Nevertheless, I think that we need to take evidence and I am suggesting that as a way forward. We can have a brief discussion of timescales when we go into private session to ensure we have enough time to do this.
I know that it is not a perfect solution, but is the committee happy to move forward with it?
Members indicated agreement.
I am content more than happy, I would say. I still have reservations.
I note that the committee is content to move forward with it.
Bus Services Improvement Partnerships (Multi-operator Travel Cards) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/243)
We move on to the next negative instrument. If no one has any comments, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Public Service Vehicles (Registration of Local Services) (Bus Services Improvement Partnerships Service Standards Decisions) (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/248)
Finally, we will consider the Public Service Vehicles (Registration of Local Services) (Bus Services Improvement Partnerships Service Standards Decisions) (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. That was quite a mouthful.
If members have no views or comments, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
I think that this would be an apposite moment to suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow us to get ready for the next panel.
09:46 Meeting suspended.