Seòmar agus comataidhean

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting local transport authorities to franchise bus services. (S6O-03863)

Will the minister acknowledge the critical role of councils in co-ordinating the work and creating partnerships to do that work? Co-ordination is important here. Without that co-ordinating function, we can do a little bit of work on removing INNS in one area of land, but it can be undone by the extension and expansion of INNS to another area of land.

It is clear that our communities have suffered from years of bus services being run for private profit rather than in the public interest, so change is desperately needed in order that the public can take greater control over how our services are run.

The SSI that we are considering today would create a system whereby a panel of experts established by the traffic commissioner would have the final say on new franchising proposals. However, the previous traffic commissioner was reported as having made comments against bus franchising. Given that the stated objective of the traffic commissioner is to

“minimise regulatory burden on operators”,

that does not give confidence to transport authorities that their plans will be fairly judged.

Yesterday, the minister attempted to allay those concerns by pointing to future guidance, but it is not clear how such future guidance will address the fundamental concern. How will the public interest be reflected on the panel rather than its being dominated by members who have a largely technical view of bus operation that comes from their experience in a privatised sector? Unfortunately, there are even some in the private bus industry who, sadly, have stated that they see the proposed changes as a form of theft of their business model.

The minister said that the issues in question could have been debated in 2019, when the Transport (Scotland) Bill was considered, but SPT raised strong concerns in evidence at the time. In the original consultation on the bill, it was ministers who were to make the final decision on franchising. The switch to the use of a panel in the final 2019 act was warmly welcomed by private operators, including FirstGroup. Today, we know that the panel system has been discredited and that new models of partnership between national and local government appear to be the most effective and most robust way of introducing franchising. According to an adviser to the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment to the panel process leaves Scotland as a backward-facing outlier on bus reform in the UK.

Yesterday, as we have heard, the NZET Committee could not have been clearer in its support for new bus franchising and municipal models, but we need to ensure that the legislation that underpins that mission actually works. Therefore, the Greens will vote to annul the SSI, and it is up to the Government to consider whether improvements can be made to the panel process or whether a change through primary legislation is now needed.

Regardless of the outcome tonight, SPT will, I believe, continue to work on franchising over the next two years, even though no guidance on that is currently available from the Scottish Government. I, too, spoke to the chief executive of SPT this afternoon. As it is unlikely that any decision on any proposal that emerges from SPT’s work will go for approval until summer 2027, there really is time for the Parliament to fix the problem. I am sure that SPT and others will be prepared to work with Transport Scotland and ministers on further necessary reforms should primary legislation be needed.

I am happy to speak to amendment 62. The climate change legislation relies heavily on the advisory body, the UK Climate Change Committee, which we all recognise provides really invaluable formal advice as well as really invaluable informal advice to Government and this committee. It is fair to say that, over the years that the CCC has been in operation and since the Parliament and Government have engaged with it, there have been issues relating to its capacity and resources and, because of that, with how responsive it has been in providing the advice that is needed at the right time, given changing circumstances.

If we think back to 2023, when the climate change plan was delayed, Chris Stark was vocal in saying that the delay had thrown out the CCC’s work programme as well as the window that was available to it to provide advice for the Scottish Parliament on our emissions reduction progress. In effect, we have been in a position in which the level of advice that the Parliament was expecting has not been available, because of the CCC’s capacity and its work programme.

We were in a similar position with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, in that the CCC was unable to provide formal advice on the 2030 target because it was still completing its work on the peatland inventory. When we set the targets for 2030 under the 2019 act, we did not have full advice from the CCC. That was not the CCC’s fault; it was to do with its capacity and work programme.

I lodged amendment 62 because the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 provides that, whenever Environmental Standards Scotland produces its annual report, it must communicate a statement to the Parliament on whether it has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities. We cannot require something similar from the UKCCC because of how it is set up, although I think that it would be preferable if it could publicly talk about any capacity or resources issues that it has. My amendment is competent in that it requires the Scottish Government to report on whether there are capacity issues and to consult the CCC in doing that.

In relation to the risk, you will understand that there is concern about the panel model, and there is not good evidence that that kind of system has worked well across the United Kingdom. However, your key argument is that going down the panel route reduces the risk of legal challenge. What evidence do you see for that?

Yes—briefly.

Would it not have been better for the Government to have come to the committee today with a far clearer articulation of what will be in the guidance? I know that preparing it would have put a lot of pressure on the minister and officials, but it would have been better to see the guidance. Then we could have made a judgment about whether it offered some reassurance on the integrity of the panel.

I appreciate the minister giving way. It has been a very challenging session.

You are rolling with it; that is great. I have just one point for clarification. Your official mentioned in the earlier discussion that one more piece of legislation is required to bring in the provisions for franchising. I would like to hear a commitment that that work will continue.

I welcome you saying that, even if you do not need to supply the guidance if the SSI is annulled, you will still work on the guidance and it will still be available for the traffic commissioner.

Some of the concerns that are being raised today come down to the independence of the traffic commissioner and their appointment. The minister will remember that the previous commissioner did an interview that appeared to be quite prejudicial towards franchising. That has really riled people, who want franchising to happen because that is in the public interest. What assurances can you give that the incoming traffic commissioner clearly understands their responsibilities and clearly understands that the policy priority of Government and this Parliament is for franchising to work successfully in Scotland, as is the case in Wales, where there has been a strong public commitment to that?

Could the cabinet secretary reflect a bit on the evidence that we had from Environment Standards Scotland that there is deep concern about the quality and depth of information in the catch-up reports that came on the back of section 36? Beyond what Mr Golden has put forward as a new framework, what is the Government doing to reflect on that and improve the reports? Many people were quite shocked by how thin those reports were and by the fact that they did not really bring new action to the table.