Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

No, I apologise.

Erica Judge, has that been your experience, too? I am not saying that you should not repeat what has been said, but can you say anything that might add to or reinforce the point?

I will throw a second question at you, too, if that is okay. We have heard in evidence that longer-term funding could have unintended consequences. That is no reason not to do it, but Glasgow City Council and the Corra Foundation have talked about the possibility—and the risk—of those who get such awards potentially being overly dependent on one funder. We have also heard that locking in a long-term approach for those who win the awards also locks out those who are not successful. Do you have any reflections on that?

That was helpful.

I have one final question, which I will open to either Professor Jung or Neil Ritch. We would be looking for the Scottish Government and its agencies to provide longer-term funding certainty for the third sector, but I am conscious that they do not always have full sight of what their own longer-term budgets will be. For example, there will be a UK budget on 30 October, which will give us an idea of the Scottish Government’s budget. Early next year, though, there will be a spending review, which might lead to revisions in-year, let alone what might happen in years 2, 3 or 4.

Mr Ritch, do you recognise that that might be a challenge for the Scottish Government and other public agencies? How could they circumvent that in order to give the longer-term funding that we would all like to see? That is a nice easy one for you to start with.

That was very helpful. I have no further questions, but perhaps Tobias Jung would like to add something before my colleagues come in.

Professor Jung, I have so many follow-up questions that I would love to ask, but I will ask none of them, as the convener will chastise me if I do.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to all our witnesses. Thank you for supporting our budget scrutiny.

Longer-term funding for the third sector has been a key ask for some time now. I note that both the Robertson Trust and Inspiring Scotland have said in their submissions to this committee that they are trying where possible to give longer-term security to organisations that are successful in getting grants from them. Karin Earl, can you put on record why you do that and what you feel the benefits are? Can you also give a specific example of the difference that the approach has made to some of the awardees?

That is helpful. They will struggle with the same things that local authorities in Scotland struggle with. It is about making sure that there is communication. Thank you very much, convener.

The Get Glasgow Moving petition is really interesting. Initially, it appears that it seeks to redraw primary legislation, if it were to move through Parliament and be successful. Today, however, we are looking at secondary legislation for something that was agreed by the Parliament in 2019. Therefore, although there is a connection between the petition and what we are looking at today, I do not think that it is a direct one.

The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee will have to be allowed to decide how it wishes to scrutinise and go forward with the petition. The question in my head is whether, if we do not pass this negative instrument or allow it to move forward, there will be any pathway for franchising bus services in Scotland. In that respect, I am very mindful of SPT’s ambitions to improve the bus service via franchising in Glasgow.

That said, I agree with Mark Ruskell MSP that we need more information on how all of this works. It is very reasonable for Get Glasgow Moving to seek clarity on the role of the traffic commissioner and the panel that would be appointed, and the criteria by which they might or might not make decisions.

As I say, there is absolutely a need for more information, but I just want to put on record that there are two moving parts here. The first is Get Glasgow Moving’s commendable efforts to seek a wider scrutiny role for the Parliament with regard to primary legislation that it has already passed, and the second is the secondary legislation that we are looking at and which provides a pathway to bus franchising. The two things are connected, but not directly so. Again, I would absolutely welcome more information from the Scottish Government, and it would be helpful if we could get some clarity on the role of the traffic commissioner, too.