Seòmar agus comataidhean

Because of time constraints, I will not ask other witnesses whether that happens more often, but if it does, the committee would be quite keen to hear about it. If employers wait until they have vacancies before they ask you, “How can a disabled person fit this role?”, they might have already created a job that is not suitable for someone who faces additional barriers to—sorry for the clumsy expression—mainstream employment.

I will pursue my final question with Elizabeth Baird. Employers might be close to having a business case to employ maybe another 1 or 1.5 employees, irrespective of whether those people have disabilities. It is a fine line and there is a tipping point if you go into recruitment and are not expanding your number of employees. I think that Ms Baird talked about wage subsidies earlier. Could you give a little bit of clarity about where those wage subsidies come from and what role the DWP has in that?

A lot of people seeking employment will be on employment and support allowance. I know that they can keep some of the ESA if they are in employment for under 16 hours a week, but there must surely be a business model in which we can get people into long-term well-paid jobs and off ESA. That way, the taxpayer will be a winner, the DWP will be a winner and, more importantly, the person with the disability will be a winner. Community jobs Scotland, for example, was very good at doing that kind of thing. Can you say anything about where wage subsidies play a part? Are there opportunities for them to do more?

I would love to hear more, but I know that we are pressed for time and I will not ask any more questions. Thank you very much.

I know that we are pressed for time, so I will try to be brief. I have two brief questions.

The first goes back to comments that Elizabeth Baird made about supporting employers to take on people living with disabilities. That can, of course, happen when vacancies arise, but it could also be possible to say to a large employer, “Let us look at your set-up as an employer. Where could there be positions that would be suitable for someone with disabilities?” Does that second thing happen? Could you say a bit more about that?

I am not trying to get at an issue that is not there; I am thinking about an opportunity. Was there a proactive partnership with DWP? Would that be beneficial in the future?

That is helpful. I do not think that that is an admission; it is just the reality of the world that we live in across parties and across Governments. My colleagues spoke about the fair fares review, and one of your officials, Bettina Sizeland, also mentioned it. I spoke in the debate without a motion and I thought that that was an excellent way to find out where the Parliament stands on an issue, so that we are not boxed in by party positions. During the debate, I made the point that, in Glasgow or Strathclyde, there is already a degree of integration and there are a variety of platforms—for example, the old zone card still exists and there are multicompany bus tickets. I made the case that Glasgow would be well placed to be part of an integrated ticketing pilot as well as a flat fare pilot, which is also being considered, and that those pilots should integrate bus and rail.

I will point out that what I am doing, though—

I will come to my question. However, I note that other colleagues have asked specific questions about the fair fares review and integrated ticketing pilots. All that I am doing is asking a question that is similar to what colleagues have already asked—they were not told that they were straying from the point, which I think is important.

What is your timeline for identifying areas that may be considered for a pilot? How would members such as Monica Lennon, Mark Ruskell and me know that our area is being actively considered, so that we can get involved and support any bids or pilots that may be in the pipeline?

I think that you took a very generous definition of “a wee bit” there, convener.

The powers that are contained in the instrument, which cover BSIP, franchising and municipal bus companies, are enabling powers. It is not a directive for the SPT, which covers my area, or others to use those powers; rather, it provides enabling powers that will allow us to plan ahead for the future. Will the minister confirm that, for a region as big as the one that the SPT covers, this is not an either/or? We live in a world in which a bus services improvement partnership could be developed for one part of the SPT area; a business case for franchising could be developed—the SPT is currently doing that and it will take several years and be of significant cost, I understand; and local authorities and the SPT could dip their toe in the water in relation to running municipal services. Therefore, it is not a choice between three options; it will be a case of mix and match at a local level to best meet the needs of strategic transport and buses.

That is helpful, because sometimes it feels as though it is an either/or.

Monica Lennon was quite right to raise the issue of finances. We know that, if the SPT was to use franchising powers, the costs would be eye-watering. There is no point in anyone around this table, from any party, pretending that the Government has got spare change for that sitting about in its coffers, because it simply does not. Will you say a little bit more about the conversation that the Scottish Government would expect to have with other parties in this place, and with any current or future Government at Westminster, about how to identify such funds that simply do not exist just now? If we are serious about our net zero aspirations, that will take partnership working across parties and Governments, and it needs to be financed. Will you set out your thoughts on how we should have those constructive conversations?

Will members be informed at that point, or is there a timeline for when you are likely to have a timeline? In other words, can you tell us that you will be able to clarify what that timeline will look like within six months, for example?