Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

You will understand that I was not the transport minister who took the 2019 act through Parliament and, as the committee has pointed out, there have been a number of things since then, too. The choices that local authorities face with regard to the different models are exactly as the member has said. Some will, for example, want to take on full bus ownership in all its aspects and implementations; indeed, many look enviously at the Lothian Buses system. Some will want to look at franchising, while others will want to consider bus services improvement partnerships, as they might better reflect some of the informal bus partnerships that currently exist and might therefore require less resource funding.

I think that Sarah Boyack is referring not only to the capital resource—in these operations, you are still dealing primarily with buses that are owned or leased—but to the people resource that local authorities will need to run partnerships. You should remember that local authorities are already local transport authorities, with significant departments that run their transport work, and these are decisions that they will make.

I ask Bettina Sizeland to look back at the different models and the work that has been done. Obviously, part of that will involve sharing best practice and looking at other parts of the country and the rest of the UK to consider different models and the cost benefit aspects. That is why people are interested in Manchester, although there are negatives to that system, too. Indeed, people will tell you about the amount of resource and time that it took to set it up.

So it is not all easy sailing—there are challenges to face. However, that is the sort of information that we want to share and, as I have said, the guidance that will come out later this year will address some of those issues, too.

Yes—sorry. With regard to the quality of delivery of services, I suppose that, in that respect, conditionality will come down to the expectations of customers. I will take that issue back and discuss with CPT and, indeed, the bus providers whether the conditions of a grant should include, say, buses having to be warm. However, I know that that will be a challenge in certain parts on a day such as this, and the buses might not be of that quality.

Interestingly, again, there can be a lot of variability across the country. I do not know to what extent we can enforce, within the conditions of a grant, a requirement to meet a certain level of service. As you have said, that is more for the traffic commissioner.

With your agreement, convener, I will take that issue away and think more about the conditions of service. My understanding is that conditionality has more to do with standards of operation in relation to the workforce and fair work first principles.

This discussion does not relate to the regulations that are in front of us; I think that everybody will acknowledge that your question is about wider issues.

I might ask Bettina Sizeland whether she can give more information on the developments. My understanding from my discussions with different transport authorities is that it is important, as the convener referred to, that a lot of the issues are driven by local authorities themselves. The South West of Scotland Transport Partnership has interests, and I had a meeting with it two weeks ago about its different models. It is still working on them. I do not want to speak for it, because it is an autonomous body, but, in the summer, it gave an indication that it has been considering the type of scheme that it would want to have. In the Highlands, people are also interested in different models. It is quite interesting that rural areas in particular are taking forward work in that area.

In Glasgow, the transport authority is interested in wider issues that also affect other local authorities. I do not know the details of the talks that have taken place, because the issue is not my direct responsibility, but we provided enabling powers in the 2019 act so that people could take that work forward. There is strong lobbying in different areas for a franchise model in Glasgow.

All that work is at an early stage, as all the local authorities would acknowledge. That might address the initial question about the funding that is available for the next financial year.

Would Bettina Sizeland like to add anything?