Seòmar agus comataidhean

Pressure on committees is definitely an issue. They need expertise and support, as we can see when committees appoint experts for short pieces of work in addition to the Scottish Parliament information centre’s capacity. We could increase that capacity through annual reporting, so that commissioners report to specific committees. A commissioner would have an expectation of which committee it might report to, but it might have done work in one year that relates more to another committee than the one to which it previously reported, so that would be an issue.

The points that you make about pressure on the SPCB are important. Could the Scottish Commission for Public Audit provide overarching support that would help to prevent the SPCB’s having to do everything? It goes back to the question earlier about why we choose the SPCB model—we do so because we know it and it works. That relates to why the committee is doing the inquiry. What lessons can be learned?

There are ways in which we could support commissioners without overwhelming the SPCB, and if we think about what capacity exists, there are definitely wins to be had, which would be a big benefit for our committees and help us to learn from best practice and experience.

That is very kind; I will take that.

I will follow up on the link between access to services and funding. The stats on supported bus services and the impact of bus service cuts show that the impact is falling disproportionately on people who are already in deprived groups, and how it affects rural and peripheral urban areas is clearly an issue because people have a bus pass, but they cannot necessarily use it. We had a cross-party group meeting on sustainable transport, and that is what the young people said. They said that they loved the concept of a bus pass, but that it is not much use if they do not have a bus to use it on. What is the joined-up approach to give people access to bus services?

Would it be possible to get a briefing on that so that we can translate what you have said into what that change means for people? It sounds very nice, but I would like to know how people put in a complaint and ask for information. As I understand it, the system no longer involves speaking to someone—it is an automated system. Could you provide us with a briefing on what that means?

Does the redeployment of staff mean that nobody has lost their job? I was told that staff redundancies were coming.

It would be good to get a briefing on that.

The questions follow the discussion about the increased climate impact and nature emergencies that our constituents are experiencing.

SEPA recently updated its assessment of areas that will potentially be vulnerable to flooding between 2028 and 2034. Can you give us an update on that assessment? Has there been much change in the vulnerable areas for that period? I am very conscious that businesses and constituents are increasingly having problems just getting insurance for their properties. It is a real-life issue, now.

From looking at it, it is about having a joined-up approach. If we are here next year having a similar discussion, is it your expectation that we will have the same number of bus services or fewer bus services, and what is the geographic impact of that likely to be?

Thank you. I can say that, as a bus user in an area where I get to use my bus pass, it is fantastic, because we have buses in my region. On the edge of the region, however, I can see the difference. Bus services have to be higher up the political agenda.

We have seen that a lot of money—around £170,000—is being spent on coaching senior members. Should you not have asked people when they applied for those jobs whether they had those skills?

It would be very helpful to see that geographic impact, not just at the regional strategic level but down to the constituency level, where we actually support people.

My second question on the issue is about flooding impact. We are two thirds of the way through the period of the river basin management plan, which aims—you are all nodding immediately—to have 81 per cent of all Scotland’s water bodies receiving a “good” or better classification by 2027. Are we on track to deliver that? It is just two years from finishing. What are the key SEPA interventions that are ensuring that we deliver that target?

I would be particularly interested in an update on the project in Edinburgh and the Lothians that you mentioned, because that is very much on the agenda locally.

That leads me to another question. At the start of the session, you talked about the evolution of the agency and the issue of engaging with constituents and enabling them to get involved. I know that you are putting more information online, but I have been told that you are considering making the 24/7 contact centre automated. There will be a loss of staff with skills and experience, but it will also be much harder for our constituents to feed in questions or get information. Will you comment on that?