Seòmar agus comataidhean

George Tarvit and Clare Wharmby want to come in.

The examples that we discussed earlier were public transport, social care and catering. Those are big areas of council spend. I am interested in how many councils are currently able or willing to provide that information.

Do you have 14 franchises down there?

Yes. I have a concern about this SSI. Obviously, concerns have been expressed about bus franchising, and I think that it is fair to say that the history of rolling out bus franchises across the UK is a pretty chequered one. I am aware that this SSI comes out of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but there is currently a petition before the Parliament from Get Glasgow Moving, which has raised significant concerns about the process set out in the SSI, particularly the role of unelected officials in deciding whether a franchise can go ahead.

I think, therefore, that we are at quite a critical point. I know that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is looking into the potential of franchising, and given that it will take significant investment just to do that preparatory work, there is a need for clarity on how this will work and whether there might be any intentional or unintentional biases or conflicts of interest within the panel that is appointed.

As a result, it is important that the committee takes evidence, certainly from the petitioners and those with experience of how similar franchising decision-making processes have been working down south, and that we reflect on that, ahead of Parliament making a decision to let this SSI pass—or not, as the case might be.

I think that it requires an evidence session, yes.

Are you are saying that it is impossible to work out the carbon impact of the care sector?

Mark Roberts, do you want to come in?

I am just trying to think this one through. We have mentioned social care. Surely there are also opportunities for saving money, whether that is about low-carbon heating systems or electric vehicles. It seems that the process is being presented as a problem, whereas actually is it not a way to deliver more efficiencies in public sector services as well as, ultimately, reducing carbon? Is that not why it is worth measuring the emissions?

Yes, but do you see a difference between a public contract where public money goes into, say, a catering service in a school and what happens next door in McDonald’s? What happens next door at McDonald’s is wrapped up in area-based reporting, which is about what happens within the general council area, but there is a direct link to public spend. Our taxpayers’ money goes into supporting public services. Should there be more climate carbon accounting for that? I am trying to understand why it is fine to push that off-limits a bit and say, “It’s a bit too hard. There are difficult decisions to make and it’s all captured by the general carbon reduction within a council area.” That does not feel quite right to me.

Finally, what does that reporting back to Parliament look like? Parliament is being asked to approve or to not stand in the way of your improvement plan that has come in on the back of an improvement notice from ESS—we have to say, “Yes, that is good”, or, “No, we think you need to think again”. If we are broadly saying, “Yes, this is moving absolutely in the right direction”, as I think that it is, what will the reporting back to Parliament look like? There is this unanswered question around scope 3 emissions, and I certainly want to see what progress is being made not in 2027—if we are still here—but in the interim period between, in 2025 and 2026.