Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the regulations. As we know, franchising is an important tool for local transport authorities to improve services in their area. However, it is also a significant intervention in the local bus market. The franchising provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 set out a new franchising model that seeks to deliver greater scrutiny and transparency in the franchising process. A key aspect of that is the inclusion of a final approval stage that is external to the authority, which assesses the proposals before the franchise can take effect. The act provides that safeguard to ensure that local authority transport authorities’ franchising proposals have been carefully considered.

Rather than providing for the decision to be made by the Scottish ministers, the 2019 act provides for an independent panel to be appointed by the traffic commissioner, with the intention of depoliticising the final decision-making process. Those measures were included in the Transport (Scotland) Bill at its introduction, they remained throughout the bill stages and they were agreed to by Parliament. Parliament also agreed that detail about the operation of the panels would be set out in regulations. The regulations that we are considering set out that detail and are fundamental to the operation of the franchise process in Scotland, not least because they will give local transport authorities certainty about how their franchising proposals will be considered.

The regulations make provision on a range of administrative and procedural matters in order to provide clarity and legal certainty on how panels should operate, and they include eligibility criteria that preclude the appointment to a panel of anybody who might be employed by operators that are affected by franchising proposals or who could otherwise not act impartially in deciding whether to approve a franchising framework. The approach is designed to secure the independence of the panel’s decision making. The regulations and the 2019 act provide guidance to panels on what they must consider when assessing a local transport authority’s franchising proposals and provide further clarity on what is and is not relevant to the panel’s decision making.

We have engaged closely on the development of the regulations with key stakeholders, including local transport authorities and the traffic commissioner’s office, and their involvement has been crucial in creating procedures that will ensure that the approval process is transparent and impartial. There is a keen appetite among a range of parties and stakeholders—including MSPs, some of whom are sitting here today—for franchising to be available to local transport authorities.

Calling for amendments to legislation or failing to pass the regulations will result in Scotland falling further behind in delivering franchising to improve services for passengers, as any proposal that would seek to significantly amend the panel process as set out in the 2019 act would require primary legislation. As committee members know, policy development of that sort can be significant and would not be completed before the end of this parliamentary session. As I have said, the regulations make important provision on the operation of panels as envisaged by Parliament when it passed the 2019 act, and annulling them could result in local transport authorities deciding to delay any franchising proposals, because of legislative uncertainty.

I am happy to answer any questions that members might have.

It is, but I go back to the point that Mr Matheson made. We have a timescale in which to get things done, so I would much prefer that we get the SSI passed now to allow us to progress the work on franchising and to ensure that we continue making progress such as we have already made.

There might well be such a risk, but my focus right now is on where we are and how we take the proposals to the next stage in order to ensure that franchising actually has the opportunity to go ahead.

The traffic commissioner would have the authority to decide all the parameters for the panel. The panel will still be established if we continue on the same route.

That approach would allow the process to continue just now to allow anyone who is looking at franchising to work on the basis that we are where we are and that we are moving in the direction that we are moving in. However, I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised by committee members. I have read the evidence, so I am very aware of those concerns. I cannot give any guarantees, because, ultimately, the cabinet secretary will make the decision. All that I can say is that I am now acutely aware of some of the concerns that have been raised.

Sitting in this room is one thing. We are on the cusp of giving local authorities or transport authorities all the powers that they need to do the thing that we want to happen. There is no guarantee that the policy will continue in the next session of Parliament, and there is no guarantee that the primary legislative process will occur. We are where we are, and I understand the committee’s concerns about the panel. I have given commitments on how we can give surety that the guidance with regard to the panel’s remit is robust and fair. However, if we stop the measure going ahead, we will potentially place a huge delay on the processes that SPT, or anyone else, wants to continue with, because they would not have certainty.

I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to check the dates or ask Bridget Bryden to take part.

You are asking when the panel is to be created?

Okay. I will clarify one point. Let me be absolutely clear that I said that I will come back to the committee with the guidance as we develop it if the motion to annul is not passed.

You asked about—I am trying to think carefully about the words that I use here—the integrity of the commissioner and their ability to make that decision independently. That goes to the heart of whether we trust people whom we give jobs to. We need to bear in mind that it will not be the Scottish Government who appoints a traffic commissioner but the Secretary of State for Transport. We might have someone sitting on the panel who will be part of that process, but the process of deciphering who the traffic commissioner will be is up to the secretary of state. We then have to accept the fact that that decision is made and that that is the traffic commissioner with whom we will work.

I will make one final point. Monica Lennon talked about there being slight differences between the models. They were not identical at all. The system that did not pass in England looked only at the financial model. The model that we are looking at goes much wider than that.

I will wind up by saying that I would very much like the committee to rethink, given some of the things that we have said. Some members have said that they are minded to vote in favour of a motion to annul. The regulations will give us the certainty to continue with the work that we have already been doing for the past number of years.

We have had the debate, so I will leave it at that.

I will defer to the convener.