Seòmar agus comataidhean

Has the minister heard some of the suggestions to enhance the service? There was a discussion in the previous evidence session about a change in the types and frequency of drug injection and the opening hours, and there is also the issue of inhalation, particularly with crack cocaine. I am aware that there is a paper at the integration joint board in Glasgow about an inhalation service. Is your office considering how you might be able to assist in expediting that?

It is interesting that the frequency of injections per person is increasing because of the change in behaviour. From the outset, one of my concerns has been the facility’s restricted operating hours. There has been commentary about drug-related debris in the wider community and, anecdotally, I have heard a suspicion that that could be related to increasing frequency of use rather than an overall increase in the number of people using drugs in the area. I have had recent correspondence from Matt Corden at the Drygate Brewing Company Ltd—the Ladywell is behind his business—who has described significant drug-related debris appearing overnight. What interaction is the service having with the council and other partners to monitor street injecting in the vicinity of the facility, particularly from 9 pm to 9 am, outside the facility’s operating hours, and what adjustments could be made to the service model as a result of that?

It is a pleasure to join you again in support of the petition. The unanimity that SPT has shown in progressing the Strathclyde regional bus strategy, with support from parliamentarians across the region, demonstrates the level of public will to see a bus franchise implemented across Strathclyde, particularly in the greater Glasgow urban core. However, as is identified by the petitioner, the regional transport authority faces constraints—particularly resource constraints—in implementing the franchise. SPT has estimated that it will cost £50 million to complete the complex processes that are set out in the act. Of course, if the act were simplified, as the petitioner has suggested, in line with the 2017 act covering the rest of the UK, the cost could be reduced. SPT has set aside £12 million in reserves to finance that work, but it estimates that, between 2028 and 2031, it will cost £100 million to £200 million to roll out bus franchising. Therefore, there are resource constraints that have not really been addressed, which might delay the implementation of the franchise.

The Government has identified the Clyde metro as a major investment priority in the context of the strategic transport projects review, and bus franchising will clearly underpin an effective Clyde metro. Therefore, there is a need to move bus franchising forward at pace, because the transport authority needs to get ahead, and the Government needs to be in synchronicity with the transport authority in the region to allow that. We cannot waste any more time. We have already had significant delays in getting bus franchising off the ground, relative to other major British cities.

My suggestion is that the committee consider bringing the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in, to inquire in detail about the resourcing of the franchising process and simplification of the legislation where appropriate, as well as—as my colleague Mr Harvie suggested—referring the petition to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, which I understand has some capacity to consider the matter in more detail before dissolution. There could be an opportunity for collaboration between this committee and the NZET Committee.

I draw the committee’s attention to the fact that, in June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £15.6 billion investment in public transport for English city regions, with each receiving around £1 billion to £2.5 billion over the next five years to deliver or enhance bus franchising and to deliver new bus infrastructure. That will result in a Barnett consequential of approximately £1.3 billion, so the position is not as fatalistic as the committee might have assumed initially. There is a significant envelope of investment, and we are not aware of what the Government will do with it.

There could perhaps be an opportunity for the committee or the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to drill down into exactly what the Government’s intentions are for that consequential, particularly in relation to Strathclyde’s well-advanced proposals for bus franchising to enable it to catch up with those other city regions. It might be prudent for the committee to hold the petition open until it at least receives a response from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee about the way it intends to proceed.

To summarise, Professor McKay, are you saying that we need more qualitative data and perhaps more contextual data?

I have heard that there is data that is not being utilised to give a picture but that there is an audit trail that could be potentially helpful in drilling down into outturns. Who takes responsibility here? The issue is the span of control. Often, there is a dissonance between local IJBs, health and social care partnerships or boards and the collation of data at a national level . Where does the optimum balance sit? Does anyone have a view on what that should look like for the control, collation and publication of data?

Thank you. The rest of the panel members are nodding.

Thank you for coming. Our previous witnesses told us about some of the difficulties with the picture that the data that is collected gives at a national level vis-à-vis the local level. The committee issued a survey to integration authorities to get a feel for the data gathering that is undertaken. It has proven to be challenging to draw firm conclusions from the data that is gathered, and it is not clear that the data is comparable across different IJBs or health and social care partnerships because of the variation in delegation of mental health services and the different formats in which it is gathered.

I would like to get an understanding of how and where you report on mental health spending and of how you categorise that spending as part of your wider financial controls process.

We know from the survey that the committee carried out how difficult it is to get robust figures and how difficult it is to collect consistent data that enables sufficiently detailed comparisons to be made to provide an insight into how mental health budgets are allocated. What needs to be done to ensure consistent reporting of mental health spending at a national level? How can we get that functioning for IJBs and health and social care partnerships?

In previous evidence sessions, the committee has discussed the idea of PBMA models, which could allow us to have real-time assessments of incremental changes in performance and would allow financing to be adjusted in a more consistent way. One of our frustrations is that we have heard anecdotal evidence that programmes are funded one year and then switched off the next year. There seems to be a reactive approach to overspends or saving requirements, which might not measure value, as opposed to cost savings.

If you were designing the system and you had total control over what you could do to optimise its performance, what improvements would you make? Could you give us a flavour of what you find frustrating, from your perspective, in trying to deliver a high-quality public service?

It was helpful. Do you have any insights into how the reporting process could be optimised? How can we make it consistent at a national level?