Chamber and committees

Will the guidance that will be implemented learn the lessons of the Nexus experience in 2015? There will be cognisance of the fact that the UK Government changed its position through the Bus Services Act 2017, but I also note that the act that we are fully implementing today was passed in 2019. I suspect that everything that we have heard about today, when we have spoken about the need to learn the lessons from what happened elsewhere, was already known when that primary legislation was passed in 2019.

I note that the Welsh experience is still fluid with regard to a national franchising system, and that that system is completely different from what would happen in Scotland. Therefore, will the guidance take into account the experiences in England and Wales in order to ensure that the situation is balanced, proportionate and fair to SPT and others, so that there is a reasonable expectation that a strong and robust case will be approved by an independent panel?

All roads lead back to the guidance, convener.

If the pathway to franchising does not include passing this statutory instrument, will there be no guidance for a panel to look at? Will it, if you like, create its own guidance and decide its priorities for itself? In other words, decisions would still be made by a panel, but it would be less likely to base those decisions on guidance, which would be in the public interest. Is that your understanding?

I am mindful that SPT has been mentioned a few times, convener. Although I am sure that it will be well aware that the statutory instrument exists, it has not proactively contacted the committee about it. Has SPT proactively contacted the Government about it, minister? Will it be a key partner in consultation on guidance that might flow from the statutory instrument?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. My issue with the 2019 act is that using a negative instrument is not the best way to make these regulations, which have “affirmative instrument” written all over them. We should give this a bit more time.

Having said that, I agree that we should take the path towards franchising, as was envisaged on a cross-party basis in 2019. The analysis of the possible issues with having an independent panel draws on the 2015 experience and the 2017 legislative changes, but we passed the act in 2019. Those experiences would have been considered at that time by Parliament and by the committee, which I was not on in 2019.

The one difference that I have with Mr Ruskell is that I think that guidance is key. We are close in many ways, because we want to see a franchising model that will benefit travellers, commuters and communities by taking a partnership approach. Guidance is key and will make a huge difference, so I would like to hear a little more from the minister about how that guidance will be pulled together.

Thank you, minister. I appreciate that there have been lots of interventions during your contribution.

If the panel is still to be set up, because that is in primary legislation, and no one can assume what primary legislation will or will not pass in this parliamentary session or after the 2026 election, would the current Scottish Government still seek to produce—or is it possible to have—non-statutory guidance that the Government would ask the traffic commissioner and the independent panel to take cognisance of, although they would have no need to do that whatsoever? My view would be that, if you can do that, I would rather have that guidance on a statutory footing rather than having a pick-and-mix, take-it-or-leave-it approach from the independent panel.

That was helpful, Erica. Does that mean that if a project is £100,000, Inspiring Scotland will fund, say, only 20 or 15 per cent of that to avoid the dependency that you talk about? Are there any issues with locking organisations that are unsuccessful in getting the funding out of the process?

Karin, I apologise for cutting across you. Those are all relevant elements, and the rest of what you would have said would have been really valuable, too, but I wonder whether I can give your colleagues an opportunity to add to that.

No, I apologise.

Erica Judge, has that been your experience, too? I am not saying that you should not repeat what has been said, but can you say anything that might add to or reinforce the point?

I will throw a second question at you, too, if that is okay. We have heard in evidence that longer-term funding could have unintended consequences. That is no reason not to do it, but Glasgow City Council and the Corra Foundation have talked about the possibility—and the risk—of those who get such awards potentially being overly dependent on one funder. We have also heard that locking in a long-term approach for those who win the awards also locks out those who are not successful. Do you have any reflections on that?

That was helpful.

I have one final question, which I will open to either Professor Jung or Neil Ritch. We would be looking for the Scottish Government and its agencies to provide longer-term funding certainty for the third sector, but I am conscious that they do not always have full sight of what their own longer-term budgets will be. For example, there will be a UK budget on 30 October, which will give us an idea of the Scottish Government’s budget. Early next year, though, there will be a spending review, which might lead to revisions in-year, let alone what might happen in years 2, 3 or 4.

Mr Ritch, do you recognise that that might be a challenge for the Scottish Government and other public agencies? How could they circumvent that in order to give the longer-term funding that we would all like to see? That is a nice easy one for you to start with.

That was very helpful. I have no further questions, but perhaps Tobias Jung would like to add something before my colleagues come in.