Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am considering your question. Regardless of the powers in the 2019 act, we would still be able to have interoperability, and we already do under the current system in many areas. We have integrated tickets on a more regional basis. Should any issues arise, we have someone from a local transport authority represented on the board; she is also the chair of the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers.

Different local authorities or regional transport partnerships will want to do different things. We will want to ensure that whatever they do is compatible with smart ticketing. However, 2.5 million people are using smart cards through the ITSO concessionary scheme separately anyway, so I do not think that there is a dependency issue. The board does not have oversight, if that is what you are implying, but I suspect that it can provide advice to me if any practical issues arise from the implementation of separate parts of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.

As I set out in my opening remarks, the motion is fairly straightforward and, in relation to the public reform legislation, it is apt, so I am happy to just move it.

I move,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board (Public Services Reform) (Scotland) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.

The principles of it are probably achieved by formal bus partnerships and franchising, because we are trying to set out something that is more sustainable just now in the financing of the bus market. A huge amount of money is going into concessionary travel, but it was set up in the previous legislation so that operators would be no worse off but no better off. It helps patronage and, hopefully, as we discussed previously, younger people, for example, will become fare-paying passengers. I have heard that and have had that discussion about franchising with councils in Glasgow. Bundling can enable the geographical coverage of an area to be complete.

As we all know, there are certain times of the day when buses are more popular. You can understand the position of operators. Remember that we are in a market that has been deregulated for a long time. Obviously, private operators need to ensure that they are making some kind of profit so that their services are viable, and it is therefore more attractive to do certain routes rather than others. That has led to local authorities having to pick up the pieces in areas where buses have been withdrawn in particular ways.

The whole point of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and, I hope, the fair fares review is to try to provide more sustainability in the system. I have written to the committee to say that we are expecting that review imminently. That is what we need for bus services. If we are going to get more people back on to the bus, they need to know that they have sustainable, reliable services and services at different times of the day, because we know that people are working on different shift patterns. In answer to your question on whether this will help to address the problems that you have, my answer is yes. It will not necessarily just be through franchising. It would also be possible to build it into the bus partnership, for example, and the schemes that come as a result of that.

I detect from the questions very little concern about these actual regulations on the objection system, so I simply refer the committee to my opening remarks, in which I set out the rationale for the legislation. From a technical point of view, this is about making sure that we have all the systems in place, and the regulations complete what is required for bus services improvement partnerships to ensure that, when they are developed, any plans that are put in place have co-operative agreement and buy-in from all concerned, and that, if operators have an objection, there is an understood mechanism and route by which they can raise it.

With that, convener, I am happy to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Bus Services Improvement Partnerships (Objections) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Fiona Hyslop]

That is not quite the case. You referred to Lothian Buses, which is a municipal bus company that is owned by the local authority. These regulations are not anything to do with that—

I am not familiar with the different local buses and the numbers that you referred to, but the principles—

We are, as I will set out if you let me continue, convener. The 2019 act provides for local authorities to run their own bus companies, like Lothian Buses, and bus partnerships, which are the subject of the regulations. It also provides for them to develop franchises. The funding that supports the development of policies relating to those aspects of the 2019 act, to which you referred, is still in the budget. It comes under the community bus fund, and £1 million in revenue funding and £5 million in capital funding have been set aside for that for 2024-25. Your question was whether the budget supports the work of the 2019 act? Yes, it does, and that is the mechanism by which it does so.

There continues to be funding for buses through the network support grant, which primarily goes to supporting the operation of bus services. There is also the concessionary scheme, which has been given a small uplift in funding. Funding to support the operation of bus services is still being provided. That is still being fully funded, as it was in 2023-24.

Again, that is an important question for the committee to consider in its wider budget scrutiny. I know that, appropriately, you have the cabinet secretary coming in to discuss wider bus issues. On this one, thinking about the wider budget, we have to keep road and rail safety paramount. That makes up the bulk of the funding for our operations. It is similar for ferries; we have lifeline ferries and we have to make sure that they continue to be supported to provide a service.

The fund is about additionality and improvement, as you are right to identify, and I hope that you are expressing support for the work in Aberdeen that has introduced those bus gates and that change in the city centre to try to encourage more people in. That was a good scheme that came forward quite promptly. Other schemes that have been ready to be invested in have probably come in a bit more slowly than we might have anticipated. These are additional projects; they are not legally or financially contracted. They are highly desirable but, in a tight budget settlement, with a 10 per cent cut in overall capital for Government, tough choices have had to be made.

Although the bus partnership fund is paused for next year, we want to continue it because—you are quite right—in trying to encourage more people to use buses, freeing up lanes to ensure that we have more reliable buses, so that people can then start to use them and increase their patronage, is desirable. I have been an MSP for a long time and remember all the budgets when people had additional funds. The questions were then about why you were giving more additional funding to some areas and less to others. It was all about additional funding. I am afraid that we cannot have additional funds in the financial climate that we have just now. It is regrettable, but I think that it is understandable in the circumstances.

I think that it was set out initially in 2019-20. Obviously, the pandemic overtook a lot of issues, so a lot of things were not progressed. It is a longer-term commitment. I am not in the position to be able to tell you for how long and when that will be. We cannot, because of the financial situation that we are in. I think that everybody recognises that, for a variety of reasons, the financial position of the UK and, subsequently, the Scottish Government is not nearly as strong as it was prior to a number of incidents, which I will not relay just now, even since 2019-20.

What I can reassure you about is that increasing and improving bus patronage is important for a variety of reasons. One is because people need it for their jobs but another is climate change. We have to make that shift. I assure you that I will continue to make sure that we can reinvest in that area—the answer is yes—but I cannot do it next year.

It is something that every MSP should be thinking about.