Chamber and committees

Yes. I have a concern about this SSI. Obviously, concerns have been expressed about bus franchising, and I think that it is fair to say that the history of rolling out bus franchises across the UK is a pretty chequered one. I am aware that this SSI comes out of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but there is currently a petition before the Parliament from Get Glasgow Moving, which has raised significant concerns about the process set out in the SSI, particularly the role of unelected officials in deciding whether a franchise can go ahead.

I think, therefore, that we are at quite a critical point. I know that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is looking into the potential of franchising, and given that it will take significant investment just to do that preparatory work, there is a need for clarity on how this will work and whether there might be any intentional or unintentional biases or conflicts of interest within the panel that is appointed.

As a result, it is important that the committee takes evidence, certainly from the petitioners and those with experience of how similar franchising decision-making processes have been working down south, and that we reflect on that, ahead of Parliament making a decision to let this SSI pass—or not, as the case might be.

I think that it requires an evidence session, yes.

Are you are saying that it is impossible to work out the carbon impact of the care sector?

Mark Roberts, do you want to come in?

I am just trying to think this one through. We have mentioned social care. Surely there are also opportunities for saving money, whether that is about low-carbon heating systems or electric vehicles. It seems that the process is being presented as a problem, whereas actually is it not a way to deliver more efficiencies in public sector services as well as, ultimately, reducing carbon? Is that not why it is worth measuring the emissions?

Yes, but do you see a difference between a public contract where public money goes into, say, a catering service in a school and what happens next door in McDonald’s? What happens next door at McDonald’s is wrapped up in area-based reporting, which is about what happens within the general council area, but there is a direct link to public spend. Our taxpayers’ money goes into supporting public services. Should there be more climate carbon accounting for that? I am trying to understand why it is fine to push that off-limits a bit and say, “It’s a bit too hard. There are difficult decisions to make and it’s all captured by the general carbon reduction within a council area.” That does not feel quite right to me.

Finally, what does that reporting back to Parliament look like? Parliament is being asked to approve or to not stand in the way of your improvement plan that has come in on the back of an improvement notice from ESS—we have to say, “Yes, that is good”, or, “No, we think you need to think again”. If we are broadly saying, “Yes, this is moving absolutely in the right direction”, as I think that it is, what will the reporting back to Parliament look like? There is this unanswered question around scope 3 emissions, and I certainly want to see what progress is being made not in 2027—if we are still here—but in the interim period between, in 2025 and 2026.

Yes. I was having a look at the different areas of scope 3 emissions. The Government has categorised some of those as being really hard to bottom out and, if I understand it correctly, further work has been scheduled for that.

One of the groups is operation of franchises. How hard is it to work out the emissions from a franchise? This committee has discussed bus franchises. Surely it would be relatively easy for a council to work out how the operation of a bus service over time and the vehicles that would be used would contribute towards climate change, through the amount of fuel that would be used and the number of services that would be run. I want your reflection on that, because it did not strike me as an area where it would be particularly challenging to understand what the climate impact would be. If councils are making decisions on franchises without really understanding the climate impact, that is a bit concerning. I will take everybody who wants to answer that, starting with Clare Wharmby.

I presume that there is a conversation about local procurement. We quite often see in the press councils being challenged about why they are air-freighting chicken from Thailand or wherever and there is an active conversation about local procurement of ingredients. I understand the challenge of going down to the n^th degree, but my point is that surely carbon is not being prioritised in procurement.

Okay, that is fine.

The other issue is about local councils and the ability of householders and businesses to connect to an EV charge point at their home or business the car or van that is sitting outside on a public highway. There are planning issues around cables crossing footways, but I know of a number of local authorities that have effectively provided a derogation to enable certain types of guttering to be put on to the footway to enable homeowners and businesses to charge at home using a more attractive, cheaper tariff. Is there any progress with councils on adopting more enlightened planning rules to enable people to use those more attractive tariffs?