Official Report 726KB pdf
National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2024 [Draft]
Agenda item 3 is consideration of a draft statutory instrument. For this item, I am pleased to welcome Jim Fairlie, Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity. As this is the first time that the minister has appeared before us in his new role, I take the opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment. We look forward to working with you, minister.
Thank you very much.
The minister is joined by, from the Scottish Government, Dorothy Cohen, lawyer, and, from Transport Scotland, Gary McIntyre, economic adviser, and Bettina Sizeland, director of bus, accessibility and active travel. Welcome, and thank you for joining us today.
As the instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, it cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves it. Following the evidence session with the minister, the committee will be invited, under the next agenda item, to consider a motion to recommend the instrument’s approval. I remind everyone that officials can speak under this item, but not in the debate.
I invite the minister to make an opening statement.
Good morning, convener, and thank you very much for having me along. I am very pleased to take on my new portfolio as Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, which includes bus and concessionary travel, and I thank the committee for inviting me to discuss the draft order.
The order sets the reimbursement rate and capped level of funding for the national bus travel concession scheme for older and disabled persons in 2024-25, as well as 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 the agreement that we reached in January with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, 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 scheme and the young persons scheme after the expiry of the current reimbursement provisions on 31 March 2024. 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 2024 to 31 March 2025.
The model for setting reimbursement rates for the older and disabled persons scheme was established in 2010. As a result of developments in the wider bus operating market since then, it was necessary to review the analytical assumptions that underpinned the model. A new model has now been developed for the older and disabled persons scheme, which considers the latest available data and evidence on industry costs, passenger demand and travel behaviours.
The evidence that is required to produce a refreshed YPS model is still emerging, as the scheme is still in its relative infancy and travel behaviours are continuing to develop. Accordingly, it was agreed with the CPT that the reimbursement rates for the young persons scheme for the current year will be retained for 2024-25. For the young persons scheme, the proposed reimbursement rates are 43.6 per cent of the adult single fare for journeys made by passengers aged five to 15, and 81.2 per cent of that fare for journeys made by 16 to 21-year-olds. As in the past year, a budget cap has not been set for the young persons scheme in 2024-25.
The proposed reimbursement rate in the financial year 2024-25 for the older and disabled persons scheme has been amended from 55.9 per cent to 55 per cent of the adult single fare, and the capped level of funding will be £203.5 million. A realistic level has been set, which takes into account patronage levels and recovery in the scheme since Covid-19.
The rates that have been set are consistent with the aims that are set out in the legislation that established both schemes: that bus operators should be no better and no worse off as a result of their participating in the schemes; and that they will provide a degree of stability for bus operators.
Free bus travel enables people to access local services and to get the health benefits of a more active lifestyle. It should also help to strengthen our response to the climate emergency, support our green recovery and embed sustainable travel habits in young people. The order provides that those benefits will continue for a further year on a basis that is fair for operators and affordable to taxpayers.
I commend the order to the committee, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for that, minister.
We now move to questions, the first of which comes from me. In setting out the content of the order, you said that the reimbursement rate for the older and disabled persons scheme has been reduced by 0.9 per cent. Can you reassure the committee that that level of payment is sufficient to cover the costs that operators will incur in providing concessionary travel?
Yes, I can. That rate was based on the modelling and the fact that we did not use all the funding that was made available for the scheme last year. The model has been set in such a way that the predicted usage reflects the usage in years gone by, so the cut is in line with anticipated use.
Thank you for setting that out. The next question comes from Graham Simpson.
Hello, minister. I, too, welcome you to your new role and look forward to working with you on the bus aspect of that role.
In the order, you have cut the reimbursement rate for the older persons scheme, but not for the younger persons scheme. Why have you cut the rate for the older persons scheme and set a cap on it?
The cap is based on the predictions of what the usage will be. The modelling is pretty good, because it has been done since 2010. As a result of that, we have a pretty reasonable idea of the expected requirement for this year.
What do you expect the use to be?
The use will be whatever has been set out in the modelling.
Well, you tell me.
I will need to come back to you with that figure. I do not have it to hand. If any of my officials have it to hand, I am quite happy for them to give it to you.
09:30
There is a range of uncertainty around any demand-led scheme. For the older persons scheme, the working assumption is that patronage in the coming financial year could average around 80 per cent of pre-Covid levels.
So you are basing the decision on something that you do not know.
No, we are basing the decision on patronage levels since Covid. We have come out of Covid, but patronage has not reached the pre-Covid levels.
We are seeing bus passenger numbers bounce back, which is a great thing, and I presume that we would want to see that continue, no matter what age group is using the buses. I am sorry; I am looking at Mr McIntyre when I should be looking at the minister. If the numbers continue to bounce back, is it not possible that you could reach the cap that you have set?
If we reach the cap, there is no provision to go above that, so that is a consideration. The level of usage relative to the cap will be reviewed on a monthly basis. The predicted usage is based on the current modelling, which gives pretty accurate figures and shows that usage is running at about 80 per cent of pre-Covid levels.
There is no cap on the young persons scheme, on the basis that we do not know what that modelling is, in order to ensure that that scheme will encourage more young people to use buses. The officials will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I am right in saying that the overall increase in usage is largely to do with the fact that far more young people are using buses than did so previously.
That is a really good thing.
It is exactly what we are trying to encourage.
Basically, you are telling the committee that you do not know how many young people will use the young persons scheme.
Not at the moment, no.
Hence there is no cap.
We need more modelling and more data.
But you have also said that you do not actually know how many older people will use the older persons scheme.
Yes, but we have far better historical data for the older persons scheme.
We want more older people to start using the bus.
If we can encourage more people to use the bus, that is exactly what we will try to do, but the current funding model is based on the number that we think will do so. If that increases in years to come, I am sure that we will be able to look at that, but, given the budget constraints that we face right now and the fact that we have a better idea about the older persons scheme than we do about the younger persons scheme, that is why the cap was set.
Minister, I note that you said in a previous answer that that will be reviewed on a monthly basis.
Bob Doris has a supplementary question. Mr Simpson, are you happy for me to let him in now, before you come to your next question?
Absolutely.
In following that line of questioning, we might have lost sight of the purpose of having a cap. I appreciate that there is pretty sophisticated modelling, given that we have had a concessionary travel scheme for more than a decade.
I am happy for the minister to tell me that I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the cap—which was not exceeded in the previous financial year, so no bus company lost out—is there to protect the public purse. That is pretty important. Can you confirm that, if there was no cap, we could not protect the public purse?
We have modelling work on the concessionary scheme for older people and on what their usage looks like, but we are not yet in a position to administer a cap for the younger persons scheme because the data that we have is—relatively speaking—in its infancy. The heart of the issue is the purpose of the cap.
That is exactly it—the cap is there to protect public funding. Before Covid, the reimbursement rate for the older persons scheme was set by using an economic model that was agreed with the CPT, which is relatively happy with where we are at the moment. No one likes to have their budget capped or to lose money—I absolutely accept that—but we are in incredibly difficult financial straits at the moment. The Government has taken the right approach in ensuring that the cap will protect funds, on the basis of the modelling that has been done.
That is really helpful.
I apologise if I sound like a pedant, but the idea of “losing” money is open to interpretation. If passengers were not using the buses, the bus companies would not get any money. Perhaps we should talk about the bus companies not maximising their income, rather than about them losing money. Is that an appropriate alternative way of using the terminology?
If that is the terminology that you would like to use, Mr Doris, I am happy to let you use it.
Monica Lennon wants to come in on the same issue.
Welcome, minister, and congratulations on your appointment.
Thank you.
What happens in the scenario where the cap is reached? What would be the impact on bus operators and users? You have talked about the modelling of this. What are the risk factors? How likely is the scenario that the cap could be reached within the financial year?
If we meet the limits on the capped amount, and if monitoring in-year suggests that the claims are likely to exceed the cap, claims for the latter part of the year are paid at a lower rate than is set out in the legislation, so as to keep the total payments under the scheme within the statutory cap. If this was the case, Transport Scotland would write to operators as soon as possible so that they would know the indication for the year to come.
So, that is the procedure. What are the likely consequences? Could they involve a bus operator saying that it is no longer viable to provide a certain route or service? Is that what we are talking about?
Individual bus operators will decide whether they want to be part of the scheme. We will have to deal with that issue if it arises as we get nearer to the end of the scheme.
I am a little concerned. We discussed earlier how we want to get more people on to buses and sustainable transport. We want to ensure that that is sustainable. We could reach the cap if we continue to be successful in getting people on to buses, and we are asking operators to provide concessionary travel at a much reduced rate to them. They could come back and tell the minister or Transport Scotland that they can no longer run a service because it is not commercially viable. Is that part of your modelling? Do you have any reassuring answers, not only for people in my area of Central Scotland, but for all of us?
No, I cannot reassure you that there will be more funding, because there will not be. The funding will be split; the cap is set as what the cap is. If we get to a position where the cap is reached, Transport Scotland will communicate with the bus operators. However, I emphasise that the modelling has been done on the basis of known figures that cover a long period of time. Currently, the figure for patronage is sitting at 80 per cent of the figure prior to Covid, and there is no indication that it will increase to the level at which we will have to do anything with the budget cap.
Okay. You sound confident. Can we see the modelling after this meeting? Can it be shared with the committee?
Yes, it can be shared with the committee.
Wonderful.
Bob Doris has another supplementary.
I think I have been kicking around the Parliament for too long, because I remember Stewart Stevenson—in a previous incarnation of your current role, minister—outlining the situation.
I want to clarify something. First, thank goodness there is a cap, because we have to protect the public purse—that is a positive, not a negative, thing. However, my understanding is that, if we reach that cap and we get the data, no service will be impacted. What will happen is that we will get the data for the next round of negotiations on setting the budget for the next concessionary travel scheme. Reaching the cap will inform the data for the next discussions that we have with bus operators, rather than put at risk any bus service, anywhere. Is that the situation?
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
Graham Simpson, do you want to ask anything further before we move on?
Yes, I would like to continue on that. There are some interesting questions there. You have said, minister, that if we get near the cap, the reimbursement rate will be reduced. Just so that I understand, what will it be reduced to?
That will very much depend on the level of the cap and of the use. You are asking me to answer hypotheticals, Mr Simpson.
It is not a hypothetical—
It is a hypothetical because, right now, we have set a cap on the basis of the modelling that has been done, so we have a relatively good idea of where it will be. If that changes, we will have to adjust accordingly, using the information that we have at that time. However, I cannot tell you what it will be because I do not know what will happen in the future.
Is it not written down anywhere in legislation?
Is what not written down in legislation?
What the cap would reduce to.
I think that I have already explained that. Let me see whether I can find this in writing so that it makes sense to you. If monitoring in-year suggests that the claims are likely to exceed the cap, claims for the latter part of the year are paid at a lower rate than that set out in the legislation, so as to keep total payments under the scheme within the statutory cap. If this was the case, Transport Scotland would write to operators as soon as possible during the financial year to let them know.
Minister, just for the record, could you detail what you are reading from?
I read that from a briefing from my officials.
Okay. Thank you.
That is not mentioned anywhere in the order—it is completely new information that the cap could be reduced to some figure that we do not know. The reimbursement rate will be reduced. [Interruption.]
Excuse me, but Bettina Sizeland is going to speak.
I am sorry, Mr Doris, but you are not the minister.
The cap has been set at a reasonable level based on the data that we have. Unfortunately, older persons have not gone back to buses at the levels that we anticipated from pre-Covid. We anticipate patronage of 80 per cent. The figure has sat at below 80 per cent for quite a long time. We have monitored the data monthly and we make payments on a four-weekly basis, so we understand what the levels of patronage and the levels of payment are.
In 2018-19, we had a situation in which we breached the cap. We wrote to the industry and agreed a bit more budget to cover some of the costs. However, the cap is set to ensure that we are financially prudent and that we protect the public purse. That means that bus operators will not raise their fares too much because the money would then get used up much more quickly, and everybody will act in a reasonable way. However, the point of the reimbursement rate, which is based on our very detailed modelling, is to ensure that bus operators are no better and no worse off in respect of the journeys that are made.
Given that the reimbursement rate could be reduced if we get near the cap, there is no incentive for operators to grow the number of older people who use the buses, is there? If they do so and get near the cap, they will get less money.
We are in a situation in which we have a fixed budget—
That is correct, is it not?
—and budget constraints. With those budget constraints, we have set a cap at the level that we think the usage and the patronage will be. That is where we are.
Okay. I have one other question.
I think that Mark Ruskell wants to ask a supplementary question on that matter first, Mr Simpson.
Sure.
I was going to ask about how long the older and disabled persons scheme has been in place, how many times the cap has been breached, and what happened, but I think that Bettina Sizeland—
I am sorry, but I did not hear what you said, Mr Ruskell.
I was going to ask about how long the ODPS has been in place and how many times the cap has been breached during that time, but I think that Ms Sizeland has already answered that question. If there is any more detail about that that you want to get on the record, it would be useful to know.
You asked how many times the cap has been breached. The time that I mentioned is the only time that it has been breached, and that was the—[Inaudible.]—at the time.
Was that at a time when patronage was growing substantially, or was that predicted? I think that we are now growing back very slowly from Covid—that seems to be the case from the modelling that I have seen. From discussions with bus companies, I think they are not expecting a huge surge in older people being back on the buses. What was the trend that led up to the breach of the cap in a single year, in 2018?
09:45
Patronage was growing, but the issue in 2018-19 was that operating costs were rising.
Final question, Mr Simpson.
I have a question on the under-22 scheme. I apologise—it does not relate directly to the order, but I will ask it anyway. In December I led a members’ business debate on the minority of under-22s who were abusing the scheme, and Fiona Hyslop agreed to look at how that might be tackled. Can you give us an update on that? If you cannot do so now, perhaps you could write to the committee on how that work is progressing.
Before you come in, minister, given that this agenda item is the SSI, an undertaking to write to the committee would suffice.
That is absolutely fine.
Okay—no problem. We will write to the committee on that issue.
Jackie Dunbar has a question on the young persons scheme.
My question has already been answered really well. Minister, I congratulate you on your new position and welcome you to the role. The question why the young persons scheme is not subject to a payment cap has already been asked, and you have answered it. Could that be considered in future?
I assume that we will get to a topping-out point, but I have absolutely no idea at this stage where that will be. We want to do as much as we can to encourage as many young people as possible on to buses, so that that becomes their habit-forming way of travelling. That is part of what we are trying to do. Once we have more data in front of us, we will review that, which will allow us to make decisions on what that will look like in the future.
I realise that I was asking a crystal ball question—asking you to look into the future—so I appreciate that answer.
Could you stay with your crystal ball for a minute, minister?
I have not managed up to now.
The young persons scheme has been really successful. There were a few teething problems at the beginning, but there is now substantial uptake among young people under the age of 22 who have the card.
Is there a target for how much you want the percentage of cardholders to go up in the next year? Will we reach a plateau in the numbers of people and their families who want a card, or do you think there is still a gap and that councils and schools could encourage young people to take up the card in greater numbers? Are we at the limit of uptake of the card, or do you think there is still a little way to go in getting the last folk on board?
There is definitely scope for us to get more people on to buses. I think that your question alludes to how many people we can get on. We are going to encourage as many people as we possibly can.
The young persons scheme has been hugely successful from a number of points of view. It is allowing young people to take jobs that they would not have been able to do without the scheme. I heard about a young girl who lives in my constituency who is travelling to Edinburgh to work in a job in the arts that she would not have been able to do without the scheme. Young people are able to go to education facilities that they would not normally have been able to attend.
More important for me is that they can see family—because families are spread all over the country now. Young people are able to jump on a bus to go and see their grandparents. To me, that is absolutely fantastic, and it encourages use of public transport.
We want to make sure, as much as we possibly can, that more people get the opportunity to use buses. That is the benefit of the scheme. To answer your crystal ball question, I do not know what the figure will top out at. The more people the better, is what I would say.
Scotland is trailblazing here. There are not, to my knowledge, any other countries in Europe that offer a free travel for young persons scheme.
I want to ask about a potential extension to the scheme to people who are in the asylum system. We have heard about the benefits for young people. Young people who are asylum seekers are currently using the young persons scheme and people who are eligible are using the older and disabled persons scheme. However, the Government made a commitment to extend concessionary travel to everybody who is languishing in the asylum system in Scotland. It might be a bit early to say, but would those people fall under an extension of one of the concessionary schemes or would it be a bespoke card or something separate to the current concessionary travel legislation that would enable them to get on the bus? I think that the commitment was that every asylum seeker, regardless of age or disability, would be able to access free travel because of the crushing circumstances in which they find themselves.
Minister, as with Mr Simpson’s previous related question, I am happy for you to answer now but, if you want to follow up in writing, that would be perfectly reasonable.
We will probably follow up in writing, because I am aware that we are going off topic. Officials are at an early stage of developing a new commitment to asylum seekers, but we will write to the committee with further details on that.
I am listening with interest, minister, because you are clearly passionate about the opportunities for young people to use the concessionary travel scheme.
You talked about your constituent being able to travel into the city for education purposes. That is a live topic across Scotland right now. Although we all want to be enthusiastic about the potential of the under-22s bus pass, in many local authorities, school bus transport is being cut and, unfortunately, young people have been told that they cannot use their school bus passes on the service buses. Is there potential for more flexibility so that young people who want to and need to use the bus to get to school—for essential purposes—can do that, rather than, as for my young constituents, having to walk almost three miles on unsafe routes to get to secondary school?
Parents are now saying that they will have to start using the car to drive young people to school, which will cause more emissions and poor air quality. Given the levers that you have—including the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which is older than me, believe it or not—and now that we have a potentially trailblazing young persons bus pass, is it not time to look at all that, to prevent people giving up on public transport and starting to car share using private cars when they do not want to do that? Are you willing to come and speak to some of those young people and their parents in Lanarkshire?
This is one of the problems with being a new minister: you have just told me something that I did not know. If you can leave that with me, we will come back to you. Yes, I will be happy to come and meet your constituents.
That is wonderful. Thank you.
If there are issues in that question that relate to the business of the committee as a whole, could the minister correspond with the committee? Of course, Monica Lennon can write to you in her capacity as a regional MSP.
Minister, when I talk to bus companies, one of their big concerns is the erosion of the reimbursement rate for older and disabled persons. Over the past 14 years, it has gone from 73.6 per cent down to 55 per cent. Are there any unintended consequences of that rate being cut?
No, because we are back to 80 per cent usage. There are also increases in the number of cardholders. There are an awful lot more cardholders, and that is reflected in the percentage. Bear in mind the fact that the bus company should be no better or worse off. There are more people using the scheme, so the rate is going down. If the situation gets to a tipping point, conversations will be had with bus operators to ensure that we can continue with the scheme.
Is there not a fear, though, when you say that bus operators have to be no better or worse off, that the way they maintain their funding when the rate is cut is to increase the prices, which affects everyone else?
Say that to me again.
Okay. If the rate is being cut and operators must not be left financially better or worse off, the way in which they will maintain their funding stream from the scheme is to increase fares, which impacts everyone else.
Yes, but more people are using the bus. Operators’ funding stream should not be dependent on Government support; it should be dependent on people using the buses. If the numbers of people have gone up—
I am sorry, minister, but I thought that the numbers had gone down.
Can you let the minister respond, please?
Yes.
No. If the numbers of people using the bus have gone up and the reimbursement rate has gone down, it balances itself out. If I am wrong on that, Bettina Sizeland will correct me—and I am happy to be corrected.
Reimbursement is based on the data and the modelling, which is why the rates change every year. We look at the patronage levels and the fare levels. The most important point is that we agree the reimbursement rates with industry each year, and they agree to those rates because they know that they will be left no better or worse off. The industry carries out shadow modelling, if you like. We then get together and look at the different factors involved to make sure not only that the operators are no better or worse off but that we are protecting the public purse.
Minister, I thought that you said that the patronage had gone down. That is why I am slightly confused.
Gary McIntyre will highlight something for me.
I will comment on the point about the lower reimbursement rate giving operators an incentive to raise commercial revenue from fare-paying passengers. The reimbursement rate is set in such a way that fare increases depress the reimbursement rate. It is a balancing act. There is not really an incentive for operators to increase commercial fares, because that would depress the reimbursement rate.
Sorry, but how does that work, Mr McIntyre? If the prices go up, the rate comes down?
Yes, that is correct.
How does that work?
The reimbursement rate modelling is a balancing act. It aims to reimburse operators for the revenue that they would have received from passengers were they paying fares, if the scheme did not exist, plus the additional costs that are incurred—
Some operators will increase their fares and others will not, yet the reimbursement rate is the same for everyone, so I am confused by that comment.
A single reimbursement rate applies to all operators in Scotland. If fares were higher in the absence of the scheme, fewer people would be paying for the bus and taking bus journeys. The reimbursement rate is set to take account of that behaviour. If fares were higher in the absence of the scheme, fewer commercial journeys would have been made by those now concessionary passengers, so the reimbursement rate is depressed through the model.
We can share all the detail of the modelling to explain that in more detail to the committee if that would be helpful.
Yes, that would be—
We have covered some of this already.
Mr McIntyre has offered to write to the committee with modelling details. Minister, whether you want to do that is at your discretion.
We can do that.
My main concern is the unintended consequences. A lot of my constituents tell me that bus fares are increasing considerably. Is that happening because operators are trying to maintain the level of funding that they are getting, so if the reimbursement rate is going down, they need to have a different tool to ensure that the funding stays the same? As you said, they are to be left no better or worse off.
If the running costs of bus companies go up, they will manage that as an operator. I am quite sure that their costs are going up, because the costs of fuel, electricity and everything else have gone through the roof, as you are well aware.
In 2006-07, there were 900,000 cardholders. In 2023-24, there were 1,618,128 cardholders. People are using the buses—they are getting on public transport—which was the purpose of the scheme in the first place.
I get that everybody is juggling finances, Mr Lumsden. Life is difficult right now—there is no doubt about it—but the Government cannot allow rates to keep going up and up. Again, coming back to Mr Doris’s point, we are trying to protect public funds as best we can while encouraging people on to buses. It is a balancing act. It is not easy; these things are tricky. We are doing the very best job that we can.
This will be your final question, Mr Lumsden.
We are also trying to attract more people on to public transport—
Yes, we are, which is why—
Can I just finish this point?
Sorry. Yes, absolutely.
Obviously, the reimbursement rate is going down, so a way for operators to maintain the money that they are getting from the capped funding is to increase the fares. Will that not disincentivise people who are paying to use public transport, because their fares are increasing by so much?
Bus companies will take commercial decisions on how much to increase their fares, and they will work out what the ratio is going to be.
On increasing the number of people who are getting on buses, we just talked about the fact that so many young people are now using buses. We are creating a habit of using this mode of transport for a generation, which will then go on to the next generation. We hope to continue that process, so that bus travel becomes an essential part of Scotland’s ability to stay connected.
10:00
Thanks. Jackie—
Could Bettina Sizeland be allowed to make one final point, please?
Sure.
With regard to the points that have just been made, it is a commercial, deregulated market, but the concessionary travel scheme is not the only scheme that supports patronage and passengers. We also have the network support grant, which goes directly to bus operators. We pay bus operators 14.4p per kilometre for every journey that they provide, and that payment is there to ensure that services and fares are kept at a reasonable level. There are other sources of support for operators to protect against the impact of operating costs and other factors that are outside their control.
I want to go back to what Bettina said earlier about the industry agreeing the reimbursement rates. Did the industry raise any concerns on that, or was there total agreement?
There was total agreement. Concerns were raised about YPS and we agreed that we would do work with the industry this year on looking at the new YPS model and at the discount factor. We will also do more work on the discount factor that goes into the modelling for the older persons scheme, as well as for the YPS.
There were no concerns about either of those schemes?
The rates were agreed.
Okay, thank you.
For the record, “YPS” is the young persons scheme.
I was thinking about Ms Lennon saying that she was not yet born when the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 was enacted. Unfortunately, I was certainly born at that point, but I will gloss over that.
In my head, I hear the mantra of “no better off, no worse off”, which we have heard a lot about today. The budget for 2024-25 is putting £370 million into concessionary fares for private bus companies. There is also the network support grant, which we have just heard about. There is massive investment from the public purse into private bus companies. That is important to put on the record.
Of course, it is incumbent upon us to ask whether that is the most effective way of using that money. Minister, if we could find a guaranteed way—without undermining the eligibility of the existing concessionary schemes—of using that quantum of cash more effectively to better run the Scottish bus network, would the Government give consideration to that?
You will have to let me think about that question—it is out of left field.
The schemes that are in place now are doing the job that we are trying to get them to do. We are trying to get more people using public transport, we are trying to cut down on emission costs and we are trying to get that habit formed in the younger generation. Right now, with the schemes that we have put in place, we can see that the number of young people using public transport has increased.
I will give you some figures. More than 116 million free bus journeys have been made by under-22s in Scotland. That landmark policy is helping young people and families with children cut the costs of their everyday travel. There are now more than 700,000 cardholders. The scheme is working: it is getting people on buses and it is saving them money. The Child Poverty Action Group has reported that free bus travel can save
“a total of £3,000 in the lifetime of a child in Scotland”.
It touches on poverty, it touches on emissions and it touches on the desire to get people using public transport. For all those reasons, the schemes that we currently have seem to be working. If you want to come up with a better scheme to use that quantum of money, I will be interested to look at it.
I might just do that at some point in the future. I was not trying to throw you a curve ball; I could simply have asked whether exceptionally good use was being made of public funds, and I think that the answer to that would simply be yes, for all the reasons that you have just outlined.
The point that I was making is that, if such a massive investment of public money is going into the bus network without compromising any of the entitlements, there might be a more effective way to use the investment in the future. I think the minister has said that he is not closed to that, but he is currently wedded to the current system, as he should be.
The fair fares review is looking into all the systems and agreements that we have in place; when it reports, we will have another discussion.
That is helpful. I have a feeling that we will have a question about that shortly.
In case there is anything that you want to elaborate on in response to what Mr Doris has asked you, minister, I remind you that you have already given an undertaking to write to the committee on a number of points following this evidence session. You can add to that if you wish.
That is a perfect segue, as I was wanting to ask for an update on the fair fares review. Minister, you said that we would have another discussion “when it reports”. Can you give an indication as to when that will be? How might the review impact on concessionary fares in the future?
I think that the commitment was given back in December, and the publication will come out in the next couple of weeks.
In the next couple of weeks?
In coming weeks.
Oh—in the coming weeks.
Yes—let me rephrase that: in coming weeks.
Okay. Is that more than a couple of weeks?
We will be able to tell you more when we get closer to publishing.
Okay. You can tell that we are very excited.
Oh, I can tell that.
It is great that you are new in post, so you can look at things with fresh eyes, but, without telling us what the recommendations are likely to be, do you anticipate that those recommendations will be implemented before the end of the current parliamentary session, or are we talking about things that will happen further into the future?
Once the review is done, we will be able to give you more detail.
Okay.
We have talked a lot today about the cap on the older and disabled persons scheme, and the reasons for it. We look forward to seeing some of the homework and modelling behind that. There has been a lot of discussion, both in Parliament and outside Parliament, about the ageing population and some of the challenges that we have with demographics. In your role with buses, are you protective of the current age limit, or do you think that it could be raised? Have you been involved in discussing that with officials or colleagues? Are you able to give any reassurance today that the qualifying age for the older persons bus pass will not be raised as long as you are connectivity minister?
I will give you no commitments at the moment. I would have to come back to you with the details of that, because that is not something that I have looked at.
So, that is not a red line for you?
I have not looked into it, to be absolutely honest, so you will just need to give me some time to get into the brief better.
Okay. I hope we have not worried lots of people that their bus pass could be under threat—but thank you.
Minister, If I interpreted you correctly, you have stated that you will wait until the fair fares review is published, and the Government will comment on its considerations then.
Yes. On the specific point about the age limit, that is not something that I have considered directly, so I will go and have a look at it.
Perhaps we could have confirmation in your written correspondence.
You are going to get a book back from me after this.
That concludes our questions from committee members.
Agenda item 4 is a debate on the motion calling for the committee to recommend approval of the draft order. I remind the committee that only the minister and committee members may speak. This is a debate, not a question session, and I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.
Minister, in case it is of assistance, you are entitled simply to move the motion.
Yes, I was about to say that I do not think that I have anything to add to what we have already spoken about. I recommend that the draft order be approved.
Motion moved,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]
I invite contributions to the debate from members.
I thank the minister and his officials for their time. It has been a very full session. The minister has probably had questions that he was not expecting, but that is a good thing.
I am comfortable to accept the motion that is before us, given that it has been agreed with industry. However, there were some answers during the session that concerned me, particularly in relation to the reimbursement rate. If fares go up, the rate might come down. If we get near the cap, it would come down to levels that we do not yet know. There is inherent unfairness in the way in which we are dealing with the two schemes, both of which are very positive. However, I do not want to extend the session any longer, so I note that I will be voting for the motion.
I found your exchange with Mr Simpson helpful, minister, because it reminded me of the complexity that sits in the existing scheme. There has to be complexity to it, because we have to protect the public purse and we have to recognise that bus operators are valued partners, but they are commercial operators that will seek to maximise the yield that they can get for their business. I am pleased that they have come to an agreement with the Government.
It is important that, on the one occasion when the cap was exceeded, there was realpolitik and the bus companies and the Government got round the table to agree a way forward that was reasonable not just for the public purse but for the bus companies.
I am reassured by the modelling work and the data, particularly on the older persons scheme, which has been going for some time now. The data is very precise. What happened previously was that, when new technology was put on all the buses across Scotland, we realised that not as many journeys were taking place as we first thought were taking place. The technology gave us exact data and allowed the Government to have a much better negotiating position with bus companies at that point.
We are in a good place in which bus companies are valued partners in the scheme and with balanced discussion taking place with sophisticated modelling work. I am sure that the committee would welcome a briefing on how that works, because it is complex. Not all members get that at the first time of asking, so I think that the committee would appreciate that.
Underpinning this are the hugely valuable concessionary schemes for older persons and younger people. This is a massive investment from the Government into the private sector for a publicly deliverable bus system. I will certainly support the motion.
It has been a really good session. Thank you, minister, for your responses. I will support the motion, but I have a couple of points to make that I hope will be kept in mind.
We need to ensure that some flexibility is built in, particularly around the young persons travel scheme, because there are challenges not just in Central Scotland but across the country around school transport. It is about making sure that different systems can work together.
I am reassured to hear about the engagement with bus operators and with business, but I reiterate the point about the wider engagement that is needed with our communities. Those who already use the bus and those who want to use the bus face many barriers. We have talked before in the committee about bus deserts, which are areas across Scotland where people just cannot get a bus any longer, and that is a worry.
I appreciate the commitments that the minister has made today, particularly on engagement with MSPs such as me who have challenges in our areas at the moment. I will support the motion.
As no other members wish to contribute to the debate, I invite the minister to sum up and respond.
Thank you all very much for your input. I will definitely take on board a lot of the comments that have been made. As you know, I am new to the role, so there is stuff that I am learning as we go along. However, I give an absolute assurance that I am committed to ensuring that Scotland delivers a world-class bus service that helps with all the things that I have spoken about in the debate.
The question is, that motion S6M-11994, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.
The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course. In the convener’s absence, I invite the committee to delegate authority to me to finalise the report for publication.
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the minister and his officials. I briefly suspend the meeting before the next item.
10:15 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
Environmental Governance