Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Does the Fiscal Commission build in a tolerance level in relation to that £1.5 billion? I absolutely get the point—your forecast could be dramatically blown off course by a significant policy change at a UK or a Scottish level, or by an unforeseen event. Does the Fiscal Commission build in a 5 per cent tolerance or a 10 per cent tolerance? I do not even know whether that is a thing, as this is not my area. If your forecast is £1.5 billion, would you say that that could be 10 per cent higher or 10 per cent lower, based on a range of judgments? If so, what is the tolerance level around that?

Thanks for putting that on the record.

You have probably guessed the final part of my question. You say that you need a bit more time. The Scottish Government is committed to reviewing all of this in the round, but it cannot do that unless it is confident that it has robust baseline data. Quite rightly, you need a bit more time, but the committee needs to plan how we wish to scrutinise all of that. What do you think “a bit more time” looks like? When will things have stabilised so that we have that baseline data?

I apologise, Professor Roy: I am almost treating you as though you are a politician, which you are absolutely not. If I had asked this question of a minister or a cabinet secretary, invariably my colleague would have said, “The financial year 2024-25.”

Once Social Security Scotland gives outturn figures for all of that and they can be verified, validated and analysed, are you good to go on this? If so, what is the timescale for that? We would ask that question of the politicians, but the politicians would have to ask others. I feel as though we are asking the experts directly.

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?