Chamber and committees

I am familiar with some of the models that you have outlined, as I have been to some of those places, too. I think that many members of the public feel that carrying around a card is moderately unfashionable, to say the least, and they are much more used to being able to tap on and tap off with their phone—I have even seen MSPs who are far more technically advanced than me paying for stuff with their watches.

Mary Docherty has rightly outlined the complexity of the situation and the work that has been undertaken to date. I want the policy to be delivered for the variety of reasons that I set out earlier and I am keen to work with the committee to make sure that happens.

As I understand it from the information that has been shared with me, everything is still on track in that regard.

Yes, nationalisation would be a much wider conversation, which would come with a fair degree of complexity, given that the bus network is owned by companies. I am not sure that they would necessarily welcome someone simply coming in and buying their companies or seeking to do so.

To go back to franchising—it is important that we get our language right when we discuss this—several representations have been made to me in good faith, by members of the committee as well as by campaign groups, about the panel that exists as part of the franchising process, which was put in place through previous legislation. I am listening carefully to those arguments. We need to recognise that the process was put in place for a reason, which was to provide certainty for the viability of services going forward. However, I also recognise that the panel is considered to be an additional barrier by many who want change. I am certainly giving those arguments active consideration, as I should.

On the wider discussion about franchising, the Government has put money on the table—£4 million—thanks to a budget agreement on franchising. We did that because we support giving local councils the opportunity to pursue franchising. SPT has taken up that offer, but it is the only transport partnership that has done so until now, which makes me massively pause for reflection. Why is it that only SPT has wanted to do that? We need to reflect on that. The commitment to support SPT financially is there, as the Government has laid out. I am sure that, as it progresses its proposals, we will continue to work in close partnership.

If we were to design a system for Scotland’s buses right now, we would not choose this as the starting point—that goes back to some of my reflections on the governance of ferries. Different stories are being told in local areas. The discussion often feels detached from day-to-day lives in our rural communities, because they do not have anywhere near the access to services that someone would have in Edinburgh, where buses are municipally run.

It will not be an easy feat to piece that jigsaw back together or to create a new one, but I am determined to make things better. That is why, since coming into post, I have announced £55 million for the bus infrastructure fund, which builds on the commitments that have been made in previous years. It is also why, through the subsidy grant, I have made sure that buses can run—£6.5 million is available through that to deal with the financial pressures that companies have faced as a result of Donald Trump’s actions in the middle east and the responses to that.

We want our bus services to be better, and I am determined to make that happen. I am keen to work with you to do that.

There is a very big leap from franchising to nationalising a privately held asset. That is not something I am actively considering at the moment. I dread to think what the cost implication would be across Scotland. Many local authorities, who would be the ones to do that, would probably argue that they do not necessarily have the expertise to own and run a bus service, given everything that they would be undertaking.

11:00

Language is important in that context. When we talk about buses, I hear a lot about franchising or municipally run services but I hear less about nationalisation. We must be clear about exactly what all those things are when we set out our arguments and make decisions.

I gently suggest that what has happened is that I have come into post and have, at pace, engaged in constructive and forthright discussion across the board about our bus network. I have come to the conclusion in my head that we should not necessarily seek to constrain ourselves by having a big overarching bill but that we should instead focus on where we can make specific interventions to improve the operation of the system. I think that having the ability to operate at speed and be specific is better than the alternative.

I do have other concerns. I do not want the committee to get the impression that there has not been a lot of really positive working going on, because there has been. Forgive me for focusing on the negatives a bit, but it is important to highlight what the Scottish Government’s current issues are.

I will read from the letter that I sent to Heidi Alexander:

“There is now no scenario in which Scotland would have a fully integrated rail body from GBR access date, and therefore no way in which Scottish passenger services could be brought within the definition of GBR passenger services”,

which of course impacts our ability to have the access benefits that GBR is meant to provide for customers. That can change only if the UK Government is willing to be more flexible with its legislation, and I would certainly encourage it to be so. I have set that out in a very detailed letter to the secretary of state, and I look forward to an early response.

Convener, to go back to your earlier point about how open and transparent I want to be with the Parliament, I hope that that gives you an insight into the discussions that I am having with the UK Government on what is an incredibly important issue for Scotland’s railways.

No—I can say that.

I can say that.