Chamber and committees

This will be my final question, as we have to move on. Have you done any analysis of how many routes will be saved or added through the bus priority fund partnerships? What analysis has been done on modal shift?

Very briefly, there have been a lot of questions to the minister, because there is a degree of scepticism whether it will deliver big change. At the end of the day, the question is whether bus users will get better and more reliable and sustainable services. I will let this piece of legislation go through today, but what I am really interested in is the report and the action that is taken afterwards.

Yes, the point is that getting it right in the first place means that you do not need the redress. Dr Fifield, do you want to come in on that point?

Okay. Thanks very much.

From the written evidence, for which we are very grateful, and the oral evidence so far, it has come across that there are some really big-ticket issues that need to be addressed. What difference has been made as regards engagement with Environmental Standards Scotland? It is now sitting there, but I was struck by Scottish Environment LINK’s comment that it

“welcomes the acceptance that Scotland is in breach of the access to justice requirements of the Aarhus Convention in relation to costs”.

How do we ensure that a difference is made in that respect?

Perhaps we can start with Lloyd Austin. There seems to be a big gap between what Environmental Standards Scotland was meant to achieve and the narrowness of what has been expected of it thus far. Once Lloyd has commented, we can pick up what the other submissions had to say.

Have you analysed the different costs of increasing modal shift? We have lost so many bus services. Part of the issue is how you stabilise and sustain those services, as the minister has said, but it also about creating new services that attract people, which could be a matter of timings or routes. The community bus fund is £1 million. Is there some issue with start-up costs in order to get this going? Is that the block? Having introduced the 2001 act, I know that there is a huge gap between having the powers available and actually using them.

I am sorry—I was using the fund.

Infrastructure is the issue. Councils are setting their budgets for 2024-25 now, so 2030 is not far away. They are having to make estimates about waste and recycling centres, vehicles and the need for infrastructure, as well as about communication. Local authorities and SOLACE have said that they do not agree with the statistics in the Scottish Government’s financial memorandum. What is your response to that? Do you have other information to fill the huge gap between what Government and local authorities are saying?

This has been a really useful debate and, like others, I was interested to see it coming forward. Again, a lot of this comes back to the issue of finance for local authorities not just to ensure that facilities are available but to communicate with our constituents so that they take the right route and we do not see any more fly-tipping. After all, it damages our communities, and we need to get rid of it.

The minister’s opening statement referenced £1 billion of investment in recycling services for local authorities during the previous decade. Is it possible for the committee to get a breakdown of that? Can we also get more information about the recycling improvement fund? The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers said that the fund is ending in the next year to 18 months. What will replace that? Finance has been an issue for local authorities since the first consultation on the bill in 2019.