Chamber and committees

Okay. Thank you.

Just to give a slight balance to the debate, I have to say that I did not detect any scepticism. Instead, what I heard today from the questioning, including that from myself, was the fact that there are huge challenges in achieving that modal shift—that is, getting individuals and families out of cars and on to buses—as well as the fact that significant public investment is already sitting there and that the existing money can be used better. I suppose that the subordinate legislation is part of that, as it ensures that local authorities can use the new powers but that bus operators—who are the main, key and strategic partners—can object, as appropriate, to certain measures.

The statutory instrument appears to be quite balanced, so we did really not ask about that. Instead, we used the session more as an opportunity to take a strategic look again at how we take forward publicly funded buses in Scotland in a strategic manner and to have a wee bit of wider budget scrutiny. I did not detect any cynicism—I want to put that on the record—but I did detect significant challenges that not just Government but all of us together in Parliament have a responsibility to address.

I will leave it at that, convener.

I will just double-check something before Professor Parsons comes in—he could also deal with this point when he answers.

Bridget, are you saying that you anticipate that, in the near future, there will be an understanding of environmental issues that are clearly systemic? Although individuals and communities may have to go through your processes, will there be an understanding, almost before something gets to ESS, that a case will be deemed to be permissible for further investigation and potential enforcement because of the data, information and expertise that SEPA and Scottish Water have and the national trends that they see? Do you anticipate that that will happen?

Apologies, minister, for rewinding the clock slightly to talk about franchising. There is a little bit of mission drift in some of the questions, but this is for my own clarity. Clearly, we have to learn lessons on franchising from elsewhere, but my experience in Glasgow is that there are some very profitable routes. I think of the 61 bus in my constituency, where you can pack them in, the bus is always full and there is a high frequency of service. However, after a certain time at night, you cannot get the 8 or the 90; there are connectivity issues in my constituency. Quite often, routes are subsidised—I think that the minister mentioned £55 million-worth of subsidies. If franchising were to roll out in a meaningful way and routes were bundled as part of the franchising process, should we expect to see that public subsidy in other areas, where bus companies withdraw from a service because they have no compulsion to continue to offer a commercial service and require a public subsidy? Could we see a shift in that relationship with franchising? Has there been modelling work done in that regard? You do not need to answer today necessarily, but I am keen to better understand that relationship, because it is central to a lot of it.

I was not grilling you on that, minister.

Okay. Thank you.

That was helpful. I should note that I spoke about the Government having to tread carefully because of exposure to the public purse, rather than having reluctance, and perhaps that is why there has been a prolonged period of consideration. I suppose that time will tell on that.

I am interested in the line of questioning about ESS looking at systemic issues, because it cannot deal with individual cases. That got me thinking a little more about how SEPA or Scottish Water would do that in the first place. I could be wrong, but I would have thought that, if SEPA or Scottish Water saw a pattern in the complaints coming in and investigations, those public bodies would do significant analysis of that to identify what was systemic in that.

That is vital information to inform ESS before anyone gets to ESS. As we know, complainants have to go through Scottish Water or SEPA in the first place, exhaust all the appeals functions there and then go to ESS. What relationship is developing? We must get to a stage where if, for example, it becomes self-evident that a community group that Dr Fifield supports is dealing with something systemic, that can then be evidenced by work that SEPA or Scottish Water has done in advance. What does that relationship look like?

In future, when the commercial sector withdraws and services are tendered and replaced at a subsidised level, would it be worth tracking those subsidies over time? If the partnerships and the franchises are successful, a sustainable model would not see subsidising done in that way. It would be done in a more proactive, strategic way.

That is useful clarification, Professor Ulph. I absolutely get that and would never try to draw you on the merits of policy intent, but politicians have to make informed decisions on costings, because there are lots of things that we would like to do but we always have to be able to afford them and budget for them—not just from year to year, but in the longer term. That is why this evidence session is particularly important.

On the baseline data, the Scottish Fiscal Commission notes with regard to the adult disability payment that

“the average award level for new applications has not yet stabilised”.

By “average award level”, do you mean the number of award applications that are successful, the level of award or a combination of both? More importantly, when would you expect that to stabilise? Would that become more baseline data on which you would advise the Scottish Government about modelling work for any future changes?