Seòmar agus comataidhean

Members now have the opportunity to contribute to a debate on the motion. Does any member wish to speak?

I see that Mr Balfour wishes to speak. I ask the clerks, if any other member wishes to speak, to put their names in the chat function.

Cabinet secretary, I have one brief supplementary question. It might be one for you to reflect on and write back to the committee, because I expect that we will return to this policy matter once the legal case, which is subject to the sub judice rule, is disposed of in one way or another.

How much notice would the UK Government have been required to give the Scottish Government of its intention to scrap the provision of winter fuel payments to all pensioners, to allow you to pivot and to seriously consider any alternatives or mitigations?

I also have another point on which I ask the Scottish Government to reflect. Other measures and mitigations can be brought forward only if the Scottish Government knows how much cash it has in its pocket. How much notice would you need of the financial settlement for the current financial year, which can still be revised, and for the following financial year, to allow you to budget appropriately to do something different?

You might say that, in asking that question, I am drifting away from the regulations, in which case you could perhaps bank it and write to the committee about that at a later date. However, it is clear that the lines of questioning from members so far relate to what could have been done differently, so that information would be helpful.

Katy Clark has a supplementary.

The question is, that motion S6M-14682, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Is that a very concise way of saying that the Scottish Government will take into account people elsewhere’s experiences of raising issues with independent panels that are not necessarily—albeit that I do not want to use this word—competent? I suppose that some of the narrative around this would be that, if you are dissatisfied with an outcome, you do not like the panel. Is the Scottish Government confident that lessons that need to be learned will be learned during development of the guidance?

Okay.

Get Glasgow Moving has a live petition, which is not with the committee as yet, although I suspect that it might end up with us. I thank it for its briefing and dialogue ahead of today’s meeting. It asks for two things that appear to be contradictory: it wants to fully enact the franchising provisions of the 2019 act, which the instrument seeks to do today, but it also wants a speedier, more streamlined and easier system to secure franchising.

I am not speaking for Get Glasgow Moving—it will be watching the meeting carefully and will speak for itself—but, similar to what Michael Matheson said, if we complete the powers of the 2019 act, will the Scottish Government continue to monitor what is happening elsewhere, learn lessons from that and, if required, reflect and change course? In other words, it will not be a myopic Scottish Government that passes the instrument and says, “Job done”, but will continue to review what is happening elsewhere.

So, leaving aside various points on which the SPT and others would want a statutory instrument or guidance to reflect what they think is the best design and structure of the arrangements, can you confirm that you are not aware of any overarching or underlying issue for SPT? Can you also confirm that it will, as a matter of course, be consulted on the drafting of guidance?

I have one final question. I highlight that the third bullet point of the petition from Get Glasgow Moving relates to cash—the finance and money to make all this work. Points 1 and 2 are moot if there is no cash in the system to do these things.

If a future Government were to decide to unpick the provisions of the 2019 act, that would—as we have heard—involve another full review of the franchising system, which could take quite some time.

Mr Lumsden will, during the debate, tell us his motivations for wanting to annul the instrument. It is for him to speak for himself in that regard; however, some politicians simply do not agree with franchising and will use any tool in the toolbox to wreck the proposals.

Would you be concerned that, without anything to replace the pathway to franchising, there is a risk that what replaces it in a future session of Parliament might not be as robust as what we currently have?

Will the member take an intervention?

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?