Chamber and committees

I am conscious that I did not respond to you when you raised that in the debate, but that was part of what I thought was a very good, open debate on the fair fares review, asking “What is the art of the possible?” or “What can we do?”

I would caution the member that that idea has already been aired, discussed and suggested as part of how we might fund grass-roots culture. The concept of doing that is therefore out there. How that would be operationalised is another issue. You could say, for instance, that the spend needs to go into public transport, and I would say that that would be a preference, if that were to happen. However, Glasgow City Council might want to use that spend to help clean up after such events, which can obviously be disruptive. There is already a campaign—which I think is UK-wide; it is not just taking place in Scotland—to put levies on events tickets to help develop culture and music generally.

This is straying into somebody else’s portfolio but, considering streaming and how musicians actually get their income, Bruce Springsteen or Taylor Swift will generate a lot of income from concerts, which can increasingly become part of their firmament in earning their income, but a budding, new musician will not be in that position and will have fewer opportunities to get income through the traditional ways of selling.

The idea may happen. I am not in charge of it or responsible for it, but it has been thought of in relation to supporting culture, rather than public transport. That might be something that Bob Doris may wish to pursue with Angus Robertson, the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, who I think has already responded to those suggestions or will certainly be discussing that with the culture sector.

The processes depend on which type of procurement we might use, and progress depends on the availability of funding. The intention is to look at the potential for procuring at the same time as we decide whether to go down the mutual investment model route in relation to parts of the A9 that are in that territory. I have previously announced some of the design and build contracts in relation to the next stages of the A9 work. That process would be in parallel.

As for what could be done and when, just as I was honest and straight with the people at the meeting, I cannot say here definitively that the work will be done by 2030. Hypothetically, and depending on everything working to effect, it could be; that is what my official from Transport Scotland said in terms of the timescale. It could be, but it all depends, and there are too many variables to necessarily give you that absolute guarantee.

I would not push things with local councils, because it is for local councils to make decisions about things in their own areas. That is the whole point of our agreement in working with local authorities. We can provide enabling legislation, and we can provide regulations. When it comes to decision making, we have to trust our local councils to make decisions about their own local areas.

If local authorities want to use them, yes—but, if they do not, that is a decision for them.

As a Government minister, I am recused on the issue, and, at this stage, I do not think that my colleagues are in a position to answer. Mr Fairlie is leading for the Scottish Government on the issue.

Historically, there have been such groups. When I was a back bencher, as a local constituency MSP, it was me who pulled together all the relevant bodies to progress the issue, which we did at the time with Ms Gilruth, who was the then transport minister. I think that that is probably as much as I can say.

I will ask Alison Irvine to keep me right, and also whether she wants to come in. We want to make the improvements, but interrelated decisions will need to be taken. It might look slightly different from what it was originally but, as we have heard, the support and rolling-stock investment are on-going and very live. There have been some investments already.

For brevity, I say that I have answered a number of parliamentary questions from Douglas Lumsden and given as much information as possible on what has already been invested, but we are committed to making the improvements in the north-east in particular. He is right. It may take a different shape than was perhaps originally intended, but there will be further clarity when we have the rail decarbonisation plan refresh, in which the north-east will be a particular area of focus—as he knows, because he has taken a keen interest.

Some issues relate to side deals that are associated with the city region. Recently—in the past few weeks—my colleagues at Transport Scotland attended meetings on that with the relevant authorities. We will try to keep everyone, including the committee, as well informed as we can, when we can, but I might not be able to give you as much information as you want at this committee meeting.

I am actively looking at the issue. Just two weeks ago, I pulled together a variety of stakeholders, including ScotRail, Network Rail, the unions and those who have an interest in issues in relation to women and girls. The core issue is antisocial behaviour and people who are already drunk coming on to trains—I get that. However, the main focus of solutions has to be tackling antisocial behaviour. Just last week, I met the justice minister about that broader issue. I have been discussing it with a number of people, not least Mr Simpson. As we progress, I will keep the member and the committee informed as to what decisions are finally taken. Obviously, I will have to consult my colleagues, because that is a Government policy decision.

Yes, I bought a ticket.

I do not necessarily agree that there are barriers. There is an issue of taking advantage of the powers that have been approved—not least by this committee—to enable the different choices that are available, whether they are bus service improvement partnerships, franchising or public ownership. I suspect that Monica Lennon might be asking where the financial investment comes from—for example, if someone wants to own their own fleet, that implies either leasing from somebody else or purchasing with capital.

On what we as a Government can do to help that process, it might be helpful for the committee to know that the powers already exist, as I said, in the regulations that have been passed. For example, on the timetable for authorities that want to pursue franchising—I understand that that is an active and live current issue for Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and that a consultation has just finished—there are steps along the way. The enabling aspects are our responsibility, and I can advise the committee, which will be actively involved in this, about the franchising arrangements transitional process.

The regulations that prescribe the process for transitioning from a deregulated system to a franchise are expected to be laid in early autumn 2024 and to come into force before the end of the year. For franchising, rules and regulations that cover the appointment and remuneration of the arrangements panel members as well as the process that the panel must follow for making decisions in relation to local transport authorities’ franchising proposals are also expected in early autumn 2024, to come into force by the end of 2024.

There is a series of Scottish statutory instruments on appeals, because it is clear that, in the current deregulated market, there are impacts of decisions, particularly on private operators. The regulations on appeals against bus service improvement service standard decisions by the traffic commissioner for Scotland are expected in 2024 and are expected to come into force later in 2024. There are also remaining commencement orders on the enforcement powers in relation to bus service improvement partnerships.

I would not describe those as barriers; I would describe them as necessary next steps—they are not stopping the process as barriers to decision making and the planning that is required. I reassure Monica Lennon that many of the regulatory aspects involved in bus reform have already come through the committee, and that includes the ones that are the next steps.

No. Can we separate out the issues? In the work on the direct award, we are focusing on the operation of the Clyde and Hebridean ferry service. The issues around CMAL, which I think is what you are referring to—and the idea of putting ferries officials and the ferries arm of Transport Scotland into “Ferries Scotland” by joining or merging them with CMAL—are separate issues. If you were to leave Transport Scotland alone and to merge CMAL with CalMac, that in itself gives rise to lots of different questions, and I have just gone through the implications.

I do not think that we would be doing those things in the middle of the process of due diligence. There are other factors that I have not even touched on yet, dare I say. As I know from a previous time as a minister, having brought together four different bodies to form Skills Development Scotland, way back in 2007, 2008 or 2009 or whenever that was, there are pensions issues and a whole load of different other factors, and they must also be considered in the process of a direct award.

I am trying not to confuse things, and if you need explanations later I am happy to provide them offline, but that describes the complexity of the things that are happening, and doing things in order is therefore important.