Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that that is where the user-in-charge aspect becomes quite important, because it means that somebody else is in the vehicle. The vehicle might be automated, but there will be times where there might be an instruction from, say, the computer that there needs to be a transition and a person needs to take over, because of whatever circumstance. As for deployment of people and the issue of drivers working, I think that there is likely to be a transition, with control going to a user in charge instead of the vehicle just driving itself, with no other human there.

With regard to socialising the issue around the implications for jobs, we all have a responsibility to raise such matters. Last June, I think, the Parliament had a debate, in which I took part as a back bencher, on artificial intelligence and what it means generally. We cannot give you all the answers, because it is a developing area, but if we do not prepare for it and anticipate things, the market will just take over. That is the interesting aspect—that is, how you regulate in this sphere—and that is what the UK Government has done after the law commissions’ quite extensive study of the issue and report.

That would be allowed if the UK Secretary of State were to use his powers under clause 50 to do that. That would be a policy decision in that hypothetical situation.

I wonder whether George Beale-Pratt could answer the question about their terms of reference.

It is really important that we have industry experts. On the board, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is represented, and we have Alex Hornby, whom many of you will know is the group managing director at McGill’s Buses. Those people, who run organisations, are providing their expertise. I do not want to put them off their membership by saying that they will be on the board forever.

We want to ensure that the board’s output is timely, to help us to move forward with technology and smart ticketing. I am due to meet the chair shortly to look at its work programme.

Members of the board can be reappointed, but we want to make sure that they can get on with the job. They are very keen. If you have not seen them, reading the minutes of the board’s first meeting last November might be helpful background. That shows their enthusiasm in scoping the challenges in relation to getting a more operable and interoperable system, which is what we all want.

I am considering your question. Regardless of the powers in the 2019 act, we would still be able to have interoperability, and we already do under the current system in many areas. We have integrated tickets on a more regional basis. Should any issues arise, we have someone from a local transport authority represented on the board; she is also the chair of the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers.

Different local authorities or regional transport partnerships will want to do different things. We will want to ensure that whatever they do is compatible with smart ticketing. However, 2.5 million people are using smart cards through the ITSO concessionary scheme separately anyway, so I do not think that there is a dependency issue. The board does not have oversight, if that is what you are implying, but I suspect that it can provide advice to me if any practical issues arise from the implementation of separate parts of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.

As I set out in my opening remarks, the motion is fairly straightforward and, in relation to the public reform legislation, it is apt, so I am happy to just move it.

I move,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board (Public Services Reform) (Scotland) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.

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

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

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

the board’s functions,

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

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

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

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

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

The first meeting of the board was in November, at which time we were moving to the end stages of the fair fares review. Interoperability of ticketing is a key aspect of that work. Individuals who are on the board would have had the opportunity to input their organisations’ views on the review, apart from anything else.

In terms of the board’s capacity and capability, senior people are operating at board level and there are advisers who are specialists in their area. The chair has been involved in ticketing systems and procurement previously and has extensive experience on that.

I will meet with the chair in the next couple of weeks to go through the board’s proposed work plan—as you said, that plan has to come to ministers to be approved. Part of that process will be for me to listen to what board members are saying, because the whole point is that they will want to say what needs to be done. I provide ministerial oversight and am not a technological expert in ticketing. I expect that expertise to come from the board and from the Transport Scotland members who support the board. There will be steps as to what changes need to be made.

George Beale-Pratt might want to explain a bit more about what the board might look at, but I am interested in the point that people want to use mobiles instead of cards that are interoperable. We have talked about the Glasgow tripper being a success. When the ticket became available on mobiles, that increased the bus companies’ uptake fivefold. However, barcodes and QR, or quick response, codes are more of an issue. The technological standards are key. Obviously, the board can advise about the capability of different organisations to change or adapt, and whether that causes them issues or otherwise.

George, will you explain a bit more about what we expect from the work programme’s scope and coverage?

We need to give the board the space to do its work, which is multimodal and covers different areas—we have representatives with experience from ScotRail and ferries, so the work takes place across those areas. I am open to sharing what we can when we can. I will speak to the chair in a couple of weeks, and one of the things that I will explore with them is how and when we can share, so that you can understand and keep on top of what is happening around that capability.

George, are you happy to answer?