Chamber and committees

On the second point, that will become apparent in near course. The SPCB is required under the expenses scheme to agree an index to uprate the staff cost provision. We agreed, in March 2020, to index according to a mix of average weekly earnings and the annual survey of hours and earnings—ASH, as it is commonly known. That move to a basket of indices was considered to prove a steadier basis for the calculation. However, for the budget in 2023-24 and 2024-25, the SPCB chose average weekly earnings for the staff cost provision, because the ASH index became quite erratic and, in consequence, the staff cost provision would have risen by significantly less than it did as a result of us adopting AWE.

We have to pick an index. The analogy that I have used is that it is not for the SPCB members to perform as though we are bumblebees in a bottle, bouncing about erratically. There has to be an integrity behind the process. Therefore, suggestions that are made to us that we should just look, on an annual basis, to see which of those indices is going to deliver the largest uplift do not have a substantive integrity pinned to them.

Although I am not, at this stage, going to confirm which index we have used, it is important that there is some consistency and continuity in the process. I am confident that the index that the SPCB has adopted is the one that has proved consistent and favourable to all members.

I would just say, finally—

A number of SPCB staff have volunteered to support the implementation of the recommendations of the gender-sensitive audit, including a number of male colleagues, while other staff have been allocated roles. Decisions on the allocation of resources to support the project have been based on the skills and experience of the individuals involved, as well as the substantive roles that they hold. Gender has not, in itself, been a deciding factor. In all cases, in accordance with the SPCB’s performance management approach, staff have taken on roles to support the work of the gender-sensitive audit board on the basis that they have sufficient capacity and expertise to do so. The SPCB keeps that under constant review, as would be expected, to ensure that the correct level of staffing support is available to the board and that staff workload is properly and effectively monitored.

I welcome you all.

Members will be aware that, although section 38 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which makes provisions for local bus service franchising, came into effect in December 2023, the full suite of secondary legislation and guidance for the introduction of local service franchising is not yet in place. Transport Scotland, in its initial response to the petition, indicates that a number of substantive regulations have been laid, stating that

“The remaining regulations and statutory guidance to bring the franchising provisions into effect will be provided before the end of this year.”

The initial response also states that the Scottish Government has no plans to revisit the primary legislation to remove the requirement for an independent panel to be convened to approve or reject a local transport authority’s franchising proposal.

As has been highlighted in the submissions that we have received from the petitioner, although the delay in enacting provisions is, in their view, “inexcusable”, events have now slightly overtaken us. As members will likely be aware, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, at its meeting on 29 October, considered a Scottish statutory instrument relating to the traffic commissioner’s role in appointing the independent panel and recommended that the SSI be annulled. A motion to annul the SSI was subsequently lodged in the chamber, and was not agreed to. That means that the regulations are in place, and, indeed, they came into effect on 1 November.

During the NZET Committee’s consideration of the recent SSI, it has become apparent that the remaining regulations and associated guidance will now be published in the new year. There is a lot of information to consider, which is detailed in our papers for today’s meeting, and it includes developments relating to bus franchising in other parts of the UK. We have also received a written submission from Paul Sweeney, which is included in our papers, too.

I invite all colleagues who have expressed an interest in the matter—as I welcome the interest of parliamentary colleagues in relation to petitions—to address the committee. We thought of having an opinion poll to see in which order we should hear from you all, but, ultimately, we opted simply to invite you to speak in alphabetical order. I know that the clerks have asked you, if you can, to complement, rather than repeat, one another’s evidence. The committee would very much appreciate that.

We will begin with Neil Bibby.

Thank you, Mr Bibby. You have illustrated your evidence with examples from communities adjacent to my constituency in Eastwood, where there are similar concerns. Given that I regularly—indeed, almost daily—receive representations on the inadequacy of bus services, particularly in what is a growing community that feels that it is not at all well served by those services, I understand the points that you have made.

I invite Patrick Harvie to contribute.

Thank you. A number of suggestions have been made that I think that we might want to pursue, and I would note those made by Mr Sweeney and Mr Simpson, particularly in relation to legislation and other such matters. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Perhaps we could also ask SPICe to have a look at the proposed better buses bill at Westminster and to give us a little bit of information on that.

Do you want to comment, Mr Ewing?

So you are quite content. Mr Sweeney?

I heard you make that point, yes—it was not lost on me. As you know, the Parliament has been very successful at acquiring the contributions of UK ministers. [Laughter.] We can put in a long-term request and see what success we have in due course; maybe something will be made available to us before Parliament dissolves.

I note that a number of supporters of the petition are in the gallery this morning—thank you for joining us. We will keep the petition open and advance the interests as has been suggested. As we move on to our next and final new petition this morning, I thank everyone very much for their participation.

Are you suggesting, Mr Ewing, that we contact the Scottish Government to highlight the petitioner’s concerns about the lack of a consultation process and to get some sort of reaction to that?

The Convener: That is what we will do. I hope that, by that time, we will have the orders that we have been promised and will be able to investigate the matter that Fergus Ewing spoke about, which is that a high road appears to be being delivered on a temporary basis.

We will keep both petitions open and will ask the cabinet secretary to address them at a subsequent meeting.