Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have the reassurances that I need. The minister has nudged on to other areas, but I have no further questions.

Minister, with the question that I will ask, I do not seek to undermine support for the scheme; I just want to make sure that we are getting the best value for money in relation to it.

My understanding is that the reimbursement rate, which is capped for older persons but not for younger persons, is based on a percentage of the average daily single ticket fare. Over the course of a year, bus companies will increase that fare, so the amount that is reimbursed to them will increase during the year. How is that taken into account—your officials might have the detail on this—in the modelling work to set the reimbursement rate and the cap in the first place? There could be an incentive for bus companies to price gouge—although I am not saying that they are doing that—in order to increase their overall take within the scheme over the course of an individual year.

I do not want to get into the weeds of the detail, but that is positive and reassuring.

My final question is for the minister. Part of the modelling work predicts what price increases could look like in the commercial market in the year ahead. There is a relationship between that and the money—the best part of £450 million a year—that goes to commercial operators through the two concessionary schemes. We are getting quite close to a mechanism whereby we could price cap bus services across the board. Have you considered that, or could it be considered for the future?

That may or may not be a wee bit different from the 60,000 instances of fly-tipping, but I would like a bit more information about the scale of what you are talking about.

My question is inspired by Mark Ruskell’s line of questioning. It is slightly different, but it is about getting SEPA’s reflections on a recurring situation in my constituency, on which SEPA has been proactive, I must say. Late last year, SEPA, Police Scotland and the fire service and I had a meeting about Promat, which is a former industrial site in the Springburn part of my constituency. It is a huge derelict site, it is incredibly difficult to secure its perimeter, and there is a dangerous building. I am convinced that criminal elements are fly-tipping there—I am talking about not occasional fly-tipping, but industrial-scale fly-tipping, if you like. Goodness knows what is in there. Tonnes of stuff appears there from time to time.

In the summer months, young people breach the perimeter, go in and have fun. Mr Ruskell talked about fires, and fires tend to happen there, too. The fire service does not know what is in there and SEPA has deep concerns. However, it is a constant war of attrition and I am sure that there will be additional issues when the summer months come again.

I genuinely think that Police Scotland, SEPA, the local authority and the fire service are all doing what they can with their existing powers. Regarding the responsibilities of the site owners, I make no judgment about the work that they are or are not doing because that is not the reason for my question. I suspect that Promat is not the only site in Scotland where such things keep happening. Does SEPA have a view about how all public agencies can work more effectively to tackle such hazards? I do not expect you to comment on the Promat site in my constituency, but is there a more general gap in legislation, monitoring and enforcement, and if so, what is it, and how could we plug it?

I apologise for cutting in and really do not mean to be discourteous, but I am not talking about a man with a van dumping a few mattresses; I am talking about organised, high-volume, industrial quantities of waste.

Forgetting about the concessionary schemes, I am merely pointing out that, if we predict that bus fares could increase by as much as 5 per cent, there is a relationship between that, the reimbursement rate and the capping in the concessionary schemes. What will reimbursement look like if we get into mechanisms to control bus fares in Scotland—for example, if we say that the most that any bus ticket may be increased by is 2 per cent? There would then be a cap in Scotland and a knock-on effect on the concessionary travel schemes. I am not saying that that is the mechanism that you would use to do it. The point that I am making is that there are levers that could be used to bring in price capping in the bus sector. Has the Government looked at anything in relation to that more generally?

Can you say a little more about why you think that embedding this topic in core education is so important, and why it is important that parents are involved in what that will look like? I guess, from what you are saying, that you would also expect Education Scotland to be speaking to you about what that might mean in practice.

I thank everyone for their answers. I am sure that Public Health Scotland, Education Scotland and the whole family wellbeing fund will be listening to this exchange in order to engage with you on an on-going basis.

Mairi, I thank you for reflecting on some of the aspects of the report that I am going to draw to your attention. My question relates to drug education. The report talks about ensuring that education is embedded in the mainstream curriculum from primary 5 onwards and that it is co-produced with strong engagement, including with parents, on what age-appropriate education looks like. All those points are really well made. There is also stuff in there about ensuring that there is proper

“financial support ... for external organisations”

to deliver some of that, and about the need for wider community outreach to be part of education.

I am trying to summarise for the committee, as quickly as I can, some of the recommendations that you and your fellow panel members have made. Do you have any reflections on why those specific things are important? I am conscious that we have heard that you did not want the process to be a “tick-box exercise”. The Scottish Government’s response says that Education Scotland is already looking at some of this stuff and there are reviews on-going, and that the whole family wellbeing fund will deal with some of it.

Do you think that the production of the recommendations is where your participation in the story should end? Alternatively, should there be on-going engagement so that panel members can say, “Well actually, we want to know how our views are being reflected in that Education Scotland review, and in the reprofiling of the whole family support fund”?

Perhaps you can reflect not only on the importance of your recommendations but on how you can follow those through to delivery, so that the process is not simply a tick-box exercise.