Chamber and committees

Yes, it is important that you put that on the record, so thank you for doing that.

Dr Dixon and Mr Roberts will understand that these questions come from previous evidence that we have heard in relation to the matter.

Some witnesses have suggested that ESS has not quite got into the swing of using its full range of enforcement powers. Informal agreements can be better sometimes, but ESS has a range of enforcement powers and questions have been raised about whether there is sufficient expertise as yet within this young organisation, as both witnesses have put it, and whether ESS is fully resourced. This is your opportunity to respond to some of those comments.

The point that the use of enforcement powers is not necessarily a sign of success was well made. There are other ways to get the outcomes that ESS is looking for. That was interesting to hear. However, you also talked about the very high bar that applies before some of those powers can be used. I put my hands up: I have no idea whether it is appropriate that the bar is set so high. Is it set at a reasonable level for ESS, or are you still taking into account that you are bedding in as an organisation before you can determine that?

That is very helpful. Thank you.

I might just do that at some point in the future. I was not trying to throw you a curve ball; I could simply have asked whether exceptionally good use was being made of public funds, and I think that the answer to that would simply be yes, for all the reasons that you have just outlined.

The point that I was making is that, if such a massive investment of public money is going into the bus network without compromising any of the entitlements, there might be a more effective way to use the investment in the future. I think the minister has said that he is not closed to that, but he is currently wedded to the current system, as he should be.

I found your exchange with Mr Simpson helpful, minister, because it reminded me of the complexity that sits in the existing scheme. There has to be complexity to it, because we have to protect the public purse and we have to recognise that bus operators are valued partners, but they are commercial operators that will seek to maximise the yield that they can get for their business. I am pleased that they have come to an agreement with the Government.

It is important that, on the one occasion when the cap was exceeded, there was realpolitik and the bus companies and the Government got round the table to agree a way forward that was reasonable not just for the public purse but for the bus companies.

I am reassured by the modelling work and the data, particularly on the older persons scheme, which has been going for some time now. The data is very precise. What happened previously was that, when new technology was put on all the buses across Scotland, we realised that not as many journeys were taking place as we first thought were taking place. The technology gave us exact data and allowed the Government to have a much better negotiating position with bus companies at that point.

We are in a good place in which bus companies are valued partners in the scheme and with balanced discussion taking place with sophisticated modelling work. I am sure that the committee would welcome a briefing on how that works, because it is complex. Not all members get that at the first time of asking, so I think that the committee would appreciate that.

Underpinning this are the hugely valuable concessionary schemes for older persons and younger people. This is a massive investment from the Government into the private sector for a publicly deliverable bus system. I will certainly support the motion.

I think that my question was in part answered in the exchange with Mark Ruskell. Dr Dixon talked about SEPA getting more traffic, whether that is ESS having to discuss matters that are being raised directly with it or more complaints going to SEPA as a way of getting access to ESS. There was a question about whether SEPA is suitably resourced, given the greater scrutiny role that it now has. How are ESS’s relationships developing with not just SEPA, but other public bodies? Do you have any concerns about the resourcing of those organisations and how those relationships are going?

In following that line of questioning, we might have lost sight of the purpose of having a cap. I appreciate that there is pretty sophisticated modelling, given that we have had a concessionary travel scheme for more than a decade.

I am happy for the minister to tell me that I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the cap—which was not exceeded in the previous financial year, so no bus company lost out—is there to protect the public purse. That is pretty important. Can you confirm that, if there was no cap, we could not protect the public purse?

We have modelling work on the concessionary scheme for older people and on what their usage looks like, but we are not yet in a position to administer a cap for the younger persons scheme because the data that we have is—relatively speaking—in its infancy. The heart of the issue is the purpose of the cap.

I was thinking about Ms Lennon saying that she was not yet born when the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 was enacted. Unfortunately, I was certainly born at that point, but I will gloss over that.

In my head, I hear the mantra of “no better off, no worse off”, which we have heard a lot about today. The budget for 2024-25 is putting £370 million into concessionary fares for private bus companies. There is also the network support grant, which we have just heard about. There is massive investment from the public purse into private bus companies. That is important to put on the record.

Of course, it is incumbent upon us to ask whether that is the most effective way of using that money. Minister, if we could find a guaranteed way—without undermining the eligibility of the existing concessionary schemes—of using that quantum of cash more effectively to better run the Scottish bus network, would the Government give consideration to that?

That is helpful. I have a feeling that we will have a question about that shortly.

That is really helpful.

I apologise if I sound like a pedant, but the idea of “losing” money is open to interpretation. If passengers were not using the buses, the bus companies would not get any money. Perhaps we should talk about the bus companies not maximising their income, rather than about them losing money. Is that an appropriate alternative way of using the terminology?