Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that my question was in part answered in the exchange with Mark Ruskell. Dr Dixon talked about SEPA getting more traffic, whether that is ESS having to discuss matters that are being raised directly with it or more complaints going to SEPA as a way of getting access to ESS. There was a question about whether SEPA is suitably resourced, given the greater scrutiny role that it now has. How are ESS’s relationships developing with not just SEPA, but other public bodies? Do you have any concerns about the resourcing of those organisations and how those relationships are going?

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.

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?

That is helpful. I have a feeling that we will have a question about that shortly.

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?

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?

Thank you.

That is where I wanted to come in, convener. However, first of all, someone out there will be watching this exchange, and we keep talking about capex. Can we not speak in code, and can you be clear about what you mean by capex?

I knew that, but let us not codify in a way that is not accessible to the general public. That is really important.

We have had some reassurances that the small vessel replacement programme will be more stable, there will be fewer risks, and there is already more certainty about delivery compared with that for the two complex vehicles. Mr Ruskell established that in exchanges very well. There was a bid for £23 million or so of capital money to upgrade the yard in order to make it more competitive for bidding for anything commercial, including the seven vessels that may come from the Scottish Government. Mr Miller talked about the initial bid being clunky. Can we not speak in euphemisms? What do you mean by clunky? Apologies—you said “chunky”. The bid was too high, was it not?

Okay. I know that you have to answer this question in a roundabout way, but for every £1 of capital investment the public purse gives Ferguson, does that take £1 off the cost to the taxpayer of delivering the small vessels in the first place? That is what we want to know. If you are saying that we could deliver them more efficiently, I hope that that means more speedily, to a higher standard and cheaper. For every £1 of capital investment that the Government gives to Ferguson, does that shave £1 or more off the overall cost?