³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I am not sure about that. I am sympathetic and am tempted to agree, but the regulations and the guidance will be what was intended by the 2019 act. There is nothing untoward in having guidance follow the passing of a statutory instrument.

However, if the regulations are not annulled, there is nothing to prevent the minister spending a bit more time with the committee before any guidance comes into force. That would be helpful to the committee and the democratic process.

If the regulations are annulled, we will still be left with a franchising system, but one that will be significantly inferior to what we will have if they pass.

The guidance will be an underpinning assurance that public interest is at the heart of the matter, and that the independent panel will make decisions in a prudent, proportionate and appropriate manner. It is really important that the guidance is put in place and that franchising comes into existence—which I suppose it is already. Not having guidance would weaken our franchising system, irrespective of what people would prefer an alternative franchising system to look like.

Can I get a bit more clarity about your position? If we do not implement the provision, do you envisage that we should still have a check and balance in the system beyond simply removing the role of the traffic commissioner? In other words, would we bring in a new provision that the Conservatives think would be appropriate or, as others have suggested, would we just not have the check and balance in the system?

I appreciate that intervention from Mr Lumsden, because it gives me an opportunity to say that I do not believe that the process is inferior. The regulations will help to bring franchising into existence and enable the powers that are outlined in the 2019 act to be used. The debate that we are having is about whether there could be another way to do that.

I asked the minister whether the Scottish Government would continue to monitor what is happening elsewhere in the UK and beyond and whether, if the Government came to a view that there could be another way to do things, it would be myopic or open minded. His response was that the Government would be open minded. On the basis that the process will be inferior if the regulations are annulled, I will not support their annulment.

I would ask Mr Lumsden what his policy position would be if the regulations do not pass. Would it be to replace them with different checks and balances in the system, or would he want to remove the checks and balances? That goes to the heart of what we are talking about, because that was not articulated by the member when he proposed the annulment—he was silent on that issue. I am happy to take another intervention if Mr Lumsden can clarify what his preference would be—at the moment, we just do not know.

It is a worry for me if we start to change the goalposts on franchising without knowing what other people are intending. We could come out of a new legislative process with a weaker, rather than a stronger, commitment to franchising. I think that we have to let the regulations pass into law and retain the strongest possible franchising system that we can. If others want to look at a different system, we have elections in 2026 and I suspect that franchising will be an issue then.

Irrespective of whether the Government supports the motion, realistically, we all know that there will be draft legislation to review franchising in autumn 2026. Given that SPT could be ready to put something to a panel in winter 2026, I would not want to take the risk of annulling the regulations.

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?