Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suspect that my councillor colleagues would welcome that.

We are doing budget scrutiny, and my briefing pack says that we need to wait for industry to bring forward a pipeline of projects and be clearer about that before we can identify additional resource for public bodies. Is that a budget reality because the pipeline of projects brings investment, which will help to fund those bodies, or is that a strategic thing?

Okay. Thank you.

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 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?

Convener, I apologise for asking a question back to Mr Whittle that is probably stating the obvious, but I think that it is important to put it on the record. The deputy convener mentioned a few matters that the Government has taken forward to address the issues of cost. It was either Mr Austin or Shivali Fifield who said that that does not guarantee that that will resolve matters, but the Government is looking at various issues. Can you understand why the Government has been treading carefully on this? The exchanges that Mr Whittle has had with the convener show that the significant exposure of the public purse in all of this has to be a concern. I know that that is not the concern that witnesses here today necessarily want to hear, but there is a significant exposure to Scotland’s budget, depending on how we take some of the reforms forward. Is that a reasonable contention to put on the record, Mr Whittle?

I know that you want to bring others in, convener. That was quite an extensive answer. I thought that it would, hopefully, be relatively brief. Let us just put that on record.

The deputy convener talked about the Government wanting to enhance non-judicial routes to justice and remedy, the review of protective expenses orders, the exemption of court fees from July 2022 and legal aid reform. I was merely, as part of that conversation, asking whether you appreciate that the Scottish Government has to think about the cost to the Scottish public purse as it takes forward potential reforms. I think that that was quite a straightforward question. I do not think that I actually got an answer to it.

Minister, on the funding going into bus services in Scotland, I see a significant financial commitment of £429.7 million, but I am also conscious that £370 million of that is for concessionary travel, be that for under-22s, the over-60s or other groups. Will any unintended consequences arise from such a significant split of investment between concessionary travel and the wider funding of bus services? What is the Government’s rationale for doing that? Is there a relationship between that and what we all see from time to time in our constituencies, namely certain routes being less commercially viable and the withdrawal of certain services? Is there a relationship between increasing that concessionary scheme—with the massive public investment that has gone into it—and some services being less commercially viable?

Thanks, minister. I have a slight reflection and then want to ask a follow-up question.

You are right. I cannot, as an urban MSP, deny that there will be unintended consequences for some remote and rural areas. However, I would point out that, in densely populated urban areas, there are large volumes of young people at school and children who use certain travel routes. Within cities, there can be unintended consequences, too; it is not simply a remote and rural issue. As a city MSP, I think that that is worth putting on the record.

Are you effectively saying, minister, that, in a few years’ time, we could be nudging towards half a billion pounds of public investment in bus services? While keeping that rock-solid commitment to concessionary travel, we must be able to find a better way of using that half a billion pounds so that, in a few years’ time, we have a more sustainable and affordable bus service. That level of investment is a pretty good start for bus companies. Is that a reasonable picture to paint?