Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is one of the recommendations from project Neptune. There are a number of other recommendations about how the tripartite process might look in future. I am not wedded to any one concept. As the minister, my view, informed by my experience, is that something will have to change pretty radically.

If CMAL were to be absorbed into CalMac—you alluded to that—that would create a challenge in relation to Serco NorthLink Ferries. We would need to be mindful of that. A number of other factors would play into that, too.

As the minister, my view is that there is no point in my changing the governance structures unless that is what island communities want. I go back to my original point in answer to Mr Ruskell’s question. I will not foist something on island communities that they do not want.

If I ask island communities tomorrow what they would like to see, they will not talk to me about governance structures; rather, they will to talk to me about better reliability, more boats and more sailings. Fixing the here and now is vital.

I accept that there is also a governance challenge, but the more pressing issues that island communities face relate to the delivery of services. That is why it is really important that the current arrangements work for island communities. Work is on-going, and I am clear that things will need to change in the future if we are to listen to island communities and reach an optimal solution.

As you have outlined, convener, the current structure is not dynamic at times, and it is not as reflective and responsive as it needs to be. We need to reach that point in order to better serve our island communities.

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the draft order.

The order sets the reimbursement rate and the capped level of funding for the national bus concession scheme for older and disabled persons in 2023-24. It also sets the reimbursement rate for the national bus travel concession scheme for young persons in the coming financial year. In doing so, the order gives effect to an agreement that we reached back in December with the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland, which represents Scottish bus operators.

The objective of the order is to enable operators to continue to be reimbursed for journeys that are made under the older and disabled persons and the young persons schemes after the expiry of the current reimbursement provisions on 31 March. It specifies the reimbursement rates for both schemes and the capped level of funding for the older and disabled persons scheme for the next financial year, from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024.

The order is limited to the coming year and is undertaken on an annual basis to support both schemes. Because of the on-going impact of Covid-19 on bus passenger numbers and the continuing uncertainty for the coming year, it has not been possible to undertake the analysis and forecasting that usually underpins the annual revision of the reimbursement rates for the older and disabled persons scheme. In addition, only a limited amount of data is available for the young persons scheme, which became operational in January last year. Accordingly, the reimbursement models for both schemes could not be used with confidence for 2023-24.

I have agreed with CPT that the reimbursement rate for the older and disabled persons and the young persons schemes for 2023-24 will be retained for the current year. For the older and disabled persons scheme, it is set at 55.9 per cent of the adult single fare and the capped level of funding will be £216.2 million. That is set at a realistic level that takes into account patronage levels in the scheme since Covid-19. For the young persons scheme, the proposed reimbursement rates are 43.6 per cent of the adult fare for journeys made by passengers aged five to 15, and 81.2 per cent for journeys made by those aged 16 to 21. As for the past year, a budget cap is not being set for the young persons scheme in 2023-24.

I believe that the rates are consistent with the aim that was set out in the legislation establishing both schemes, that bus operators should be no better and no worse off as a result of participating in the schemes. Nonetheless, the rates will provide a welcome degree of stability for bus operators.

Free bus travel enables people to access local services and gain from the health benefits of a more active lifestyle. It also helps to strengthen our response to the climate emergency. The order provides for those benefits to continue for a further year on a basis that is fair to operators and affordable for taxpayers.

I commend the order to the committee and am happy to answer any questions.

The deputy convener makes a really good point. As I mentioned in the first response that I gave to Mark Ruskell, I get regular updates in relation to regional differences in different constituencies in Scotland. The pattern is that we do not necessarily look only at rural areas, because there are challenges in different parts of the country for different reasons. It is important that we take an intuitive approach to the implementation of the policy. I take on board the deputy convener’s point and will ensure that that is fed into the evaluation that Transport Scotland will conduct in April.

That was considered in a review that we carried out for under-26s. There is a piece of work that looked at that very issue on the Transport Scotland website. I think that we might have worked with the Scottish Youth Parliament on it, too, but that pre-dates my time in office.

It was considered, but I will be honest with Ms Lennon that, as a Government, we would not currently be in a financial position to fund it. The scheme is extremely costly—according to some news reports, more so than it actually is. I think that the scheme’s costs are worth it, but the financials that would be involved in extending it to people under 25 would be excessive under the current budget pressures that the Scottish Government faces.

Mr Ruskell is absolutely right. I see my officials nodding beside me, so I am sure that we will be looking at the qualitative feedback. Such feedback is vital in telling the story of the success of the scheme, because it is not just about facts and figures but how the scheme is changing young people’s lives and their approach to engaging with our transport networks. That is really key, so we will certainly take that away as an action point, although it will probably be captured in the planned evaluation.

The other issue is that the scheme has been a huge help in relation to the cost of living crisis. The scheme is not just about free bus travel; it is providing families with a level of protection and support, and it is important that we reflect that. We need to build some of that into our quantitative analysis, as Mr Ruskell has alluded to.

Obviously, as a Scottish Government minister, I support rejoining the EU. Therefore, I would start from a tendency to support alignment to ensure that that process was streamlined.

However, despite the fact that we have left the EU, a lot of the legislation that was previously in place is now covered by the Subsidy Control Act 2022. It is not clear to me from the advice that I have had from officials whether we have the freedom to do things markedly differently from what was previously envisaged. However, some of that is legal advice that sits with the Scottish Government legal directorate. I am more than happy to take further advice on the matter, because the models that are proposed through project Neptune, which Angus Campbell is consulting on at the moment, will depend on Ms Hyslop’s point about the model that was adopted back in 2006.

In terms of the structures, we need to test those principles with island communities, and that consultation is hugely important in that regard.

We are looking at whether the EU subsidy changes allow for more flexibility around the length of contracts. We would have proceeded with that issue even if we were still in the EU. There is potentially an opportunity to do things differently in that area.

In relation to the overall opportunities, I am not yet clear that we will be able to do things radically differently. Officials have been working with SGLD colleagues on that and I expect to get advice on it later this year. That will coincide with Angus Campbell’s consultation work and allow us to see the overall picture of what we are legally able to do.

I am not necessarily sure that it is appropriate. That has been the model historically, and I, as the minister, have not yet had evidence to the contrary to provide me with a range of options. Monica Lennon will accept that I, as the minister, would expect to receive advice on that. I have not yet had that advice, but I am not necessarily convinced that that is the most appropriate model.

In my experience in three different roles in Government, I cannot think of another example. However, I might be wrong about that. Other examples might exist in other ministers’ portfolios.

I am happy for Chris Wilcock to come in.

I do not want them to be in service for 30 years. We want to reduce the average age of the fleet, so that is absolutely not my intention.