Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I fully appreciate what Mr Harvie is trying to achieve with amendment 27, but there are a lot of moving parts in the finances that are required to meet climate targets, as Monica Lennon outlined. There is UK Government direct funding; there are Barnett consequentials from the UK Government; there are the unexpected in-year revisions that can happen to the Scottish budget as a result of UK Government changes; there are the Scottish Government’s policy decisions; there are local authorities; there is the private sector; and there are consumers and the public, who might have to pay more, directly or indirectly. There is an idea that we can land on a precise total or quantum that would be the Scottish Government’s contribution, but that might be a moveable feast. Would you reflect on that, Mr Harvie? How can we reconcile that with the amendments that have been proposed?

I am not sure about that. I am sympathetic and am tempted to agree, but the regulations and the guidance will be what was intended by the 2019 act. There is nothing untoward in having guidance follow the passing of a statutory instrument.

However, if the regulations are not annulled, there is nothing to prevent the minister spending a bit more time with the committee before any guidance comes into force. That would be helpful to the committee and the democratic process.

If the regulations are annulled, we will still be left with a franchising system, but one that will be significantly inferior to what we will have if they pass.

The guidance will be an underpinning assurance that public interest is at the heart of the matter, and that the independent panel will make decisions in a prudent, proportionate and appropriate manner. It is really important that the guidance is put in place and that franchising comes into existence—which I suppose it is already. Not having guidance would weaken our franchising system, irrespective of what people would prefer an alternative franchising system to look like.

Can I get a bit more clarity about your position? If we do not implement the provision, do you envisage that we should still have a check and balance in the system beyond simply removing the role of the traffic commissioner? In other words, would we bring in a new provision that the Conservatives think would be appropriate or, as others have suggested, would we just not have the check and balance in the system?

I appreciate that intervention from Mr Lumsden, because it gives me an opportunity to say that I do not believe that the process is inferior. The regulations will help to bring franchising into existence and enable the powers that are outlined in the 2019 act to be used. The debate that we are having is about whether there could be another way to do that.

I asked the minister whether the Scottish Government would continue to monitor what is happening elsewhere in the UK and beyond and whether, if the Government came to a view that there could be another way to do things, it would be myopic or open minded. His response was that the Government would be open minded. On the basis that the process will be inferior if the regulations are annulled, I will not support their annulment.

I would ask Mr Lumsden what his policy position would be if the regulations do not pass. Would it be to replace them with different checks and balances in the system, or would he want to remove the checks and balances? That goes to the heart of what we are talking about, because that was not articulated by the member when he proposed the annulment—he was silent on that issue. I am happy to take another intervention if Mr Lumsden can clarify what his preference would be—at the moment, we just do not know.

It is a worry for me if we start to change the goalposts on franchising without knowing what other people are intending. We could come out of a new legislative process with a weaker, rather than a stronger, commitment to franchising. I think that we have to let the regulations pass into law and retain the strongest possible franchising system that we can. If others want to look at a different system, we have elections in 2026 and I suspect that franchising will be an issue then.

Irrespective of whether the Government supports the motion, realistically, we all know that there will be draft legislation to review franchising in autumn 2026. Given that SPT could be ready to put something to a panel in winter 2026, I would not want to take the risk of annulling the regulations.

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.