Chamber and committees

The reason why the petition remains open is that the committee has continually been impressed by both the perseverance of those who have raised the issue and by what we thought was the unarguable substance of the request. I suppose that the best way of describing it is that we have declined to be fobbed off over quite a long period of time. In the event that you are able to have a chat with the petitioner, who, as we have identified, is with us today, will you be able to offer her some positive assurance?

There is a national specialist services committee, and we would be interested to know how many requests to take forward a national specialist service that committee has considered in the lifetime of this Parliament.

For which we give thanks.

I know that Ms Baillie does not want to overwhelm my largesse and good will, but I see that she would like to come in—briefly—on that point.

Despite my best efforts to clip along, we are running a little behind. I am hopeful that we can move along to the final session quickly. I think that three colleagues want to say something. Let us hear from the three members and then address all the questions together. I call Davy Russell.

I call Fergus Ewing.

If I am distilling your point correctly, Mr Ewing, you are asking that we act as a sort of marriage guidance counsellor and write to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the cabinet secretary to encourage them to meet in order to find a pathway forward that might resolve the issues at hand. We could do so on the basis that this is a petition that we take extremely seriously and that, given the time that is left in this parliamentary session, it would be helpful if both parties could respond positively to our suggestion that they have such a discussion. Is that correct?

Mindful of the fact that time is against us, are we content to keep the petition open, to pursue those two lines of inquiry and to seek to make some further progress on the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We received a late submission from McGill’s, but I imagine that it might be one of the parties to which Mr Harvie referred earlier—I say that just because he might have tried to catch my eye otherwise. Do any other colleagues want to comment?

Mr Harvie would never have guessed. We will quickly move on to welcoming the colleagues who have joined us to consider this petition: the aforementioned Patrick Harvie and Paul Sweeney. Good morning to you both.

We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the seven statutory regional transport partnerships, the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland, Bus Users Scotland, the traffic commissioner for Scotland, the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Transport for Wales, UK ministers, the Law Society of Scotland and key bus operators in Scotland. I am sure that some of those suggestions were made to us at the time by Mr Sweeney, who was never short of a list of people who we might like to contact.

Many of the submissions that we received recognised the value of franchising, although several of them highlighted work to explore more appropriate avenues within the broader

“toolbox of options for improving bus provisions”

that was included in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. Some submissions suggested that no one model would fully satisfy local needs, and the view was expressed that bus franchising was less likely to be the most appropriate option for rural areas.

Views were mixed on the petition’s ask to remove the requirement for proposed franchising frameworks to be approved by a panel appointed by the traffic commissioner. SWestrans supported that, while Strathclyde Partnership for Transport recognised that the process is now enshrined in law and expressed some concern that any change might result in further significant delay and introduce more risks for any local transport authority that is considering a franchising framework. The Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland argued against a local transport authority approving its own proposal and suggested that more robust guidance regarding panel members would be a better solution.

Many welcomed the reintroduction of the bus infrastructure fund for 2025-26, although the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland argued that, with any financial support that is provided to Scotland’s local transport authorities, all options should be considered with a view to meeting local needs.

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee undertook extensive scrutiny of the issue of franchising, including in relation to the secondary legislation that the petition asks for, when the most recent regulations were introduced ahead of the summer recess.

In a response to the convener of the NZET Committee on 25 June 2025, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity explained that the draft statutory guidance was undergoing an internal review ahead of final engagement with stakeholders. The minister added that final timescales for publication

“will depend on the capacity of these stakeholders to consider and engage with the draft document.”

The minister also indicated that the Government has no plans to modify the franchising process, arguing that the current model

“provides for rigorous scrutiny of local transport authority franchising proposals to safeguard the protection of passengers and the wider bus network from potential damage of a poorly developed franchise.”?

Before I invite committee colleagues to consider how we might proceed in the light of all that I have said, I invite Patrick Harvie and Paul Sweeney to make some comments to the committee.