Official Report 379KB pdf
Good afternoon and welcome to the ninth meeting this year of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. I remind all present that mobile phones and other such devices should be switched off. It is impressive that even the deputy convener has her phone switched off today.
Thank you, convener, for the invitation to answer questions on the Glasgow airport rail link management transfer and the decision to extend the First ScotRail franchise.
Thank you. The committee is joined by Karen Whitefield, whom I welcome.
The possibility did not emerge on a precise date. Through our monitoring of the franchise and an equivalent process that FirstGroup and First ScotRail have for understanding what is happening in their business, a set of issues emerged. It became clear to us that the franchisee was doing extremely well—far better than had been expected. The figures for passenger growth were pretty dramatic and were well up, to the extent that more than 80 million passenger journeys are expected this year, and First ScotRail's punctuality was up by 50 per cent against a 2 per cent year-on-year increase target. First ScotRail was doing extremely well and the franchise was running ahead of itself. Our concern started to be about how the company would sustain that progress and what incentive it had to do so.
Forgive me for interrupting. There must have been a point at which a decision was made to begin formally negotiating the detail of a franchise extension. When did that happen and how long were the negotiations?
The situation became clear in the autumn of 2006. We went to ministers in December 2006 and received agreement to renegotiate revenue share and extension of the franchise with First ScotRail and to secure initiatives and investments from it in return.
So, in December 2006, ministers gave permission to begin the negotiations. When did they begin?
Negotiations commenced at that time.
They commenced immediately and lasted until when?
Until their fruition was announced earlier this year.
So it took almost a year and a half to negotiate the details.
Indeed.
Another issue that has been raised is what the implications would have been of a delay in concluding the negotiations and making the announcement. As far as I recall the minister was unable to answer on the cost to the taxpayer—or the opportunity cost—of a delay to the decision. In fact, you were not able to say whether you had asked your officials for that information. Are you able to give us answers to those questions now?
In my opening remarks, I said that we have been able directly to identify a cost of £4 million that would have arisen if we had waited for the Audit Scotland report. However, the matter is more fundamental than that and it is a bit more difficult to provide exact numbers because, having hit the 80:20 split, it was perfectly clear that First ScotRail would cease to market the service, which would have lost us the opportunity to continue the significant growth in passenger use of the rail network. Therefore, there would have been a much wider loss in the public policy of achieving modal shift and getting more people on our trains, which is substantially difficult for us to monetise in the way that the question perhaps invites.
Outside of the Government and FirstGroup, who else was consulted?
We carried out extensive financial modelling, and we used outside consultants to check that the modelling was robust. I am confident that the modelling was robust and appropriate.
Beyond the commercial consultants, were any stakeholders consulted?
No. There was, of course, wide consultation on the national transport strategy and on "Scotland's Railways"; and there was wide consultation when the franchise was first let and when the terms within which we were operating moved forward. Like my predecessor, we moved forward with the process under the powers in our contract with First ScotRail.
You will know that the decision came pretty much out of the blue for most people—even for the committee. We received a letter of three paragraphs to inform us about a highly detailed and complex decision that has significant implications. You say that you had not consulted; and, as far as I am aware, the detail behind the decision has not been provided. Were you at all concerned about how that would come across, with the decision coming out of the blue?
The agreement was lodged with the Scottish Parliament information centre on Thursday and has been on the public register since then. The very substantial detail that underlies—
The decision had been announced.
Correct.
The information was not available for about a month after the decision was announced.
We wanted to be clear about what parts of the agreement we could publish. Two small areas have been redacted within the agreement for the time being. What we have published shows a level of detail that is quite unprecedented in respect of franchise agreements. By taking the time to ensure that some parts of the agreement could be desensitised and, therefore, be made publishable, we have ended up with a document that will be of great value to the Auditor General, to the committee and to everyone who wishes to see what is in the new agreement with First ScotRail.
I am sure that, if that is the case, you will have it sent to the committee as well as to SPICe.
The minister said that it was clear that ScotRail would "cease to market" its services. Was that a specific threat from ScotRail, or was it just your intuition that that would be the outcome of not renegotiating?
As David Binnie said, for any investment by First ScotRail in marketing to make any profit, it would need to get £5 for every £1 that it put in. We knew the numbers and, based on performance up to that point, it was clear to us that that was unachievable and that no sensible business would try to achieve it. The preliminary conclusion in that regard was ours.
Given the SNP's previously stated position, did the Government, when it took control, consider developing a not-for-profit model that could be introduced in 2011, rather than going for the extension?
We thought it prudent to proceed in the manner that we had laid out in our manifesto for the elections of 2007. We wanted to extract best value from the agreement and to explore the options that the previous minister had considered for extending the franchise. It became apparent that the company was delivering extremely well and that we could get £70 million for new investment in our railways. Given that it took four years to put the previous franchise agreement in place, the timescale left us considering that extension of the franchise was far and away the best option.
For future reference, if "No" is the answer to a question, "No" will do.
I will stick with the fundamental issue that Alison McInnes raised. The minister indicated that one concern that drove the deal was that the franchisee might reduce its commercial efforts as it came to the end of the franchise. Is it not a fundamental weakness in the nature of franchising that if a company is not sure whether its franchise will be renewed it will start to ca cannie as it gets to the back end of a franchise period? It is therefore worth keeping alternatives to franchising in mind.
In the past, the argument has been made for franchises as long as 15 years. Indeed, 15 years was one of the franchise lengths that was considered in the last substantive round of major refranchising, in which First ScotRail was the last to be refranchised. By extending the franchise by three years, we are not only giving the company an incentive to deliver for the benefit of public transport in Scotland, but are ensuring that the Government is—on the public's behalf—getting value for money and securing new investments in services, including, for example, new services to Shotts.
You pointed out that the consultation process began in autumn 2006. Was Transport Scotland considering all the options, or had a decision been taken in autumn 2006 that the franchise would be extended?
At that stage, we were not looking at refranchising. You will gather from David Binnie's comments that the process arose from monitoring and managing the franchise. We realised that issues were emerging that required more analysis and more discussion. We got a steer from the then ministers that the line that we were following seemed to be appropriate, but refranchising was not discussed at that point.
So the work that began in autumn 2006 was to examine the options and no decision was taken. If that was the case, when and by whom was the decision taken to extend the franchise?
No decision was taken to extend the franchise until recently. The question that we put to ministers was this: Should we pursue negotiation of the option to extend? That option was always contingent on the terms that we could achieve through the negotiation.
Can you define "recently"?
We found when we came into office that only a single option was being pursued. Of course, I cannot speak about decisions that were made by previous ministers—it would be inappropriate for me to do so—although officials may be able to help with the specific questions. On that basis, and given that there was less time available than it had taken to put the previous agreement in place, we made the initial judgment that we would pursue the approach that had been started by the previous Executive's ministers. As the negotiations proceeded, it became apparent that it was possible to extract more value for the public purse and to develop Scotland's railways to a greater extent. That led to us finalising figures in March: on that basis, the Scottish ministers decided that we would proceed with extension of the contract, thus delivering on the process that my predecessor had started.
You said that the figures were finalised in March. When specifically did you give Transport Scotland a clear indication that you wanted to fulfil one of the options that the previous Executive had considered? If you did so prior to the end of February, why did you tell the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the rail trade unions at your meeting with them in February that the Scottish Government was not considering an extension to the ScotRail franchise?
I am afraid that Karen Whitefield is misrepresenting what happened in two respects. First, you referred to "one of the options". A single option only was available to us, although I suppose that doing nothing could have been another option. The decision that the figures justified our progressing with that option was taken in March. Secondly, what I said to the STUC was not as you represented it.
Good afternoon, minister. I want to return to consultation. Would it have been good practice to have engaged in an appropriate level of consultation, particularly given the public interest in the services that are provided under the franchise and the significance of the public funds that are involved? Passengers, trade unions and other stakeholders have a clear interest in the matter.
We have something to consult on now that we have figures in front of us and we have reached an agreement with the company, and we have 18 months during which we can, if appropriate, not proceed with extension of the agreement. We intend to engage with stakeholders.
But is not it good practice to consult people prior to making arrangements and having such discussions?
It would be difficult to provide numbers in advance of having an agreement with which to proceed.
Yes, but perhaps you could have considered service levels and so on.
We can and we will do so now.
Forgive me, minister, but I would like to clarify something that you said. You said that you have 18 months in which you can consult. Does that mean that there will or will not be public consultation?
We are engaging with stakeholders.
Will there be a process of public consultation of stakeholders?
Yes. We are engaging with stakeholders.
Will you say who the stakeholders are, please?
We have a preliminary list of stakeholders. If members think we should talk to other people, I would be happy to hear from them.
The committee would welcome having that list of stakeholders.
Yes.
Why was it necessary to sign the new franchise agreement during the parliamentary recess in April 2008? We have heard that work had been done for a year and a half before then and that decisions were made in March, but the agreement was signed during a recess. Could signing it have waited until Parliament was in session? Would not that have been easier?
It would have been neither easier nor more difficult. There are well-established processes that allow the business of government to continue during recesses. The original franchise was let during a recess in 2004. Every delay in signing the agreement would potentially make the company's situation risky. We should consider some of the things that happened soon after the agreement was signed. It is possible that First ScotRail would have become less inclined to sign an agreement on the basis of the figures that were before us at that point.
During the last three months for which figures are available, 87.3 per cent of First ScotRail trains arrived on time, which is only 0.4 per cent better than the United Kingdom average, and around 8 per cent lower than the most punctual operator's figure. In your opening statement, you said that First ScotRail's punctuality was one reason why the franchise was extended. Given that First ScotRail's performance is still quite poor in respect of punctuality, for example, how do you justify the franchise extension?
The most recent figures, which date to the end of 2007, show that the moving annual average continues to rise. Indeed, the agreement that was signed with First ScotRail in 2004 sought to have it reduce its late-running minutes by 2 per cent per annum. In fact, in the first three years of the franchise, it has achieved an improvement not of 6 per cent, but of 50 per cent.
What within the new provisions that you have made will ensure that there will be not just continued improvement but continued improvement at a better rate?
I invite David Binnie to speak on that subject.
The franchise extension is based on four criteria. The first criterion is the achievement and maintenance of train performance at at least the level shown in the revision, which is based on a review of recent performance. The second criterion is the achievement and maintenance of the service quality incentive regime—SQUIRE—performance, which is about not the timing of the trains but the cleanliness of the trains and the stations. The third criterion is the delivery of priced options and committed obligations under the terms of the franchise and its revision, where appropriate. The fourth criterion is there being no outstanding event of default or remedial action not being addressed.
Minister, you told Parliament on 17 April that there had been a 30 per cent increase in First ScotRail passenger numbers. However, First ScotRail has indicated that there was a 19 per cent increase. There is quite a discrepancy between the Government's figure and First ScotRail's figure. Can you explain which is correct?
They are both correct at different points in the timeline. The audited figure to the end of 2007 is 19 per cent. We get reports from First ScotRail every four weeks, on the basis of which we expect the figure to be 30 per cent at the end of 2007-08. So both figures are correct: they simply represent the increase at different points in the timeline.
Minister, in your statement to Parliament you said that, under the current franchise agreement,
It will return £70 million extra to the Government to spend on projects. The rate of the return will reduce to 50 pence in the pound until we reach 110 per cent—I beg your pardon. When we reach 110 per cent, it will be 50:50; when we reach 114 per cent, it will become 80 per cent once again. So we have raised the level.
Leaving aside the £70 million, which is contractual and is about going early and getting extra sums back, I am talking about the day-to-day sum and the relationship between First ScotRail and the Government. Under the initial contract the return was 80p in the pound, but you tell me that it is now 50p. That is a big loss to the taxpayer.
We have maintained without any increase the amount of money that we will pay First ScotRail for running the railway. The figures that we are talking about are in addition to that amount, so there are no additional costs and no losses at that level.
I understand that there are four constituencies here: the Government, the taxpayer—although you could argue that that is almost the same thing—the travelling public and how to incentivise ScotRail. How do you square that circle?
With this particular square circle all corners are moving in a positive direction simultaneously. I see from Mr Johnstone's expression that his head is beginning to hurt. If you get the relationship right between parties in a contract, all parties should benefit. That is why contracts are signed in business.
Are you saying that for the years of the extension the taxpayer will pay less than they would have under the original contract?
The headline subsidy figure will be the same—it is level at the baseline. In addition, we will get money back to invest in our railways. In effect, we will get an improving service with increased patronage for less money.
Finally, how will the revised revenue sharing agreement differ from the current agreement? Although you have already covered some of that ground, will you summarise it for the committee?
The original agreement was that revenue would be shared 50:50 when 102 per cent of the target was reached. When 106 per cent was reached, the share would go to 80:20. We have already reached 106 per cent. We have revised the agreement so that at 110 per cent the share is 50:50, and at 114 per cent it goes to 80:20. However, because of continued growth, the £70 million and the cap on profits at £30 million, the revised agreement will deliver more value to the public purse.
Minister, can we explore the £70 million investment fund? FirstGroup said that the £70 million comes from
It means that we get the £70 million whether or not there is an increase, whereas previously, moneys would have been contingent on ScotRail's improving its performance.
How will you select the projects that will receive money from the investment fund? What dialogue will there be with stakeholders about the prioritisation of that spend?
We have a significant number of priced options, which are in the agreement that has been lodged with SPICe. I will give you a flavour of them. There are improvements to Aberdeen, Fife and Edinburgh services, and in the operation of the new Laurencekirk station. We have half-hourly services to Kilmarnock and improved services to Ayr and Stranraer. Extending the 15-minute-frequency service between Edinburgh and Glasgow is to be consulted on. There are Sunday services between Alloa and Queen Street and between Partick and Larkhall. There is an additional limited-stop service via Shotts. There are additional early morning services to allow connections to London trains, because, at the moment, too many trains leave for London without people being able to get to Edinburgh. There are improvements to connections between Dunbar and Edinburgh and between Glasgow and Perth, improvements to the far north lines to Wick, and a virtual branch line to St Andrews. I am looking in my papers for one example in particular, involving Inverurie, in which I know you will be interested.
If I could interrupt for a moment—apologies to Alison McInnes—it would have been extremely useful for the committee to have advance sight of that information, rather than listen to you read from a list and try to find the right page in the middle of the meeting. I hope that it can be marked for future reference that such information is much more useful if given to the committee in advance.
Some of those services—in fact most of them—are ones to which the minister referred in his statement to Parliament. I was disturbed—I wonder if the minister was—that he successfully negotiated a range of service improvements for many parts of Scotland, including the far north, but failed to take the opportunity presented by that negotiation to secure much-needed improvements for the comparatively poor rail services in north-east Scotland. I note that the minister mentioned Laurencekirk this afternoon. What dialogue will take place with stakeholders about prioritisation?
The process of amending the agreement between the Government and First ScotRail—the franchisee—is continuous. Changes are made on a regular basis. We are making a substantial change that brings new money to invest in Scotland's railways. We have a portfolio of options. I know that mention is made somewhere of additional services for Inverurie, so the north-east is getting its share, as is Aberdeen. The process of engagement that we will undertake will give us the opportunity to refine and amend—as we always can do—what is available. We have a portfolio of "priced options"—that is the term in the existing agreement—with which we would like to proceed. I expect that many people agree with the things that we have included. We will find out as we engage.
In your parliamentary statement you indicated that resetting the revenue share has brought longer-term benefits of approximately £50 million in reduced subsidy. You have explained some of that already, but can you provide more clarity as to how you arrived at that figure? What do you intend to do with the £50 million that has been saved?
Basically, as the railways continue to grow, there are significant opportunities for Government to gain further money with profit capping, continuing growth and the 50:50 revenue sharing that kicks in at 110 per cent. By and large, we expect to obtain substantial benefits from the agreement, including the £50 million. First ScotRail will have every incentive to earn that money, and the public purse will get access to as much money as possible and is practical to improve rail services.
You said that the new profit-sharing mechanism will begin when First ScotRail profits rise above £30 million. Has it ever made £30 million annual profit under the current franchise?
We have modelled the profits that First ScotRail is making and expects to make. We have also taken independent advice to see whether the model is robust. We believe that £30 million is the figure at which First ScotRail is currently trading.
How will any profits above £30 million be split between First ScotRail and the Scottish Government?
They will be split 50:50.
You told Parliament:
The benchmarks are based on a review of First ScotRail's recent performance, which has been at an increasingly high level. We have sought to capture that. Performance will be monitored through the existing rail industry mechanisms.
First ScotRail has an enormously powerful incentive to meet the new benchmarks. If it fails to do so, the extension will lapse.
That is a good cue for my next question. The extended franchise is scheduled to end just before the Commonwealth games come to Scotland.
It will end just after the games.
It will end in the same year as the games. I return to the point that you made earlier about franchisees tending to ca cannie—to use my phrase—near the back end of a franchise, if they do not think that they will get the business again. Does the timing of the end of the franchise not worry you? I would look for a franchisee that is seeking to excel in the year when the whole nation will be in the shop window of the world.
I take a different view. With the eyes of the world on Scotland and its transport infrastructure, the last thing that the franchisee will want will be to damage its credibility by delivering anything other than world-class services for the Commonwealth games. It is useful to have the games at the end of the franchise, to maintain the performance levels that we seek, rather than have them tail off, as might otherwise happen. That is a judgment call.
The key will be whether First ScotRail thinks that it will be awarded the franchise again.
Other members have supplementaries on benchmarks. I am not sure that we have received a clear indication of what the benchmarks are. Someone must know that.
Are you referring to the four areas of benchmarking that we have mentioned?
The minister said:
I can explain some of the difficulties by showing the committee that the benchmarks are very detailed. They specify target performance levels for minutes delayed and breach levels, and cover individual periods. There are 13 periods for capacity in year five, for example.
Can the figures be supplied to the committee in writing?
They are part of the agreement, so when we send you the agreement, they will be available to you. If we do not give you the precise answer that you reasonably seek, it is because the benchmarks are developed in such considerable detail that it might take up too much of the committee's time to do so.
I am sure that it will not come as a surprise to you that we are disappointed that we did not receive that detail before you came to answer questions from us.
I am particularly interested in benchmarking around access to rail services for disabled people and their families. What benchmarks are in place to improve services for them? I know from my work on the Equal Opportunities Committee that services are not always good and accessible. I am talking about trains as well as stations. What will be done to improve services and how will those improvements be monitored to ensure that they make a difference for disabled people and their families?
The member correctly points to stations, responsibility for which is held in partnership with the Department for Transport. In other words, Transport Scotland prioritises stations, but it is the DFT's programme. I have discussed the matter with my opposite number at Westminster who, like me, is anxious to make as much progress as possible.
Do you agree that if such measures are to be implemented, people who have disabilities need to be involved in the process, so that they can express the problems that they have experienced as regards getting on and off trains and using switches in toilets? Surely that is good practice.
We are about to advertise for three people—who must be disabled—to join the Public Transport Users Committee for Scotland. That is part of our process of mainstreaming the voice of disabled people on public transport. I am sure that we will get good advice from those people, and I look forward to receiving it. I will meet the new convener of the PTUC tomorrow, and I believe that the committee will meet on Thursday.
It would be helpful for us to be kept up to date as that work gets under way and to receive any reports that result from it.
Sure.
The minister will be aware from my question to him after his statement to Parliament that I was disappointed that more of the £70 million investment would not be targeted at supporting routes to Aberdeen.
We have not been asked to support Aberdeen crossrail, as yet.
Is it therefore reasonable to assume that the opportunity might exist to consider that proposal in any consultation that takes place?
I point out that we are looking to improve services to Inverurie and back, which is part of what the crossrail project seeks to deliver. Of course, we will continue to consider what we can do.
I really must respond to your saying that you have not been asked to support Aberdeen crossrail yet. The north east of Scotland transport partnership and Aberdeenshire Council have asked for support for that project on a number of occasions, and it has been bounced back and forth by Transport Scotland. Life has been made extremely difficult for that project, which has proved itself over and over again. Nestrans, Aberdeenshire Council, local MSPs and a thousand-signature petition—I do not know what more the north-east has to do to get Aberdeen crossrail.
Perhaps I could clarify. I was responding in the context that we have not been asked for funding. We have paid for Scottish transport appraisal guidance appraisals, which at the moment are showing a negative return for investment, and we have asked for further work to be done to deliver a project that will bring a positive return.
Does the extended franchise impose any financial obligations on other organisations?
We do not believe so.
I understand that it places financial obligations on Strathclyde partnership for transport. If that is the case, would it not have been wise for you to consult SPT?
We do not believe so, because SPT is no longer responsible for rail services. However, I ask Dr Malcolm Reed to respond.
Some residual obligations are carried forward. The sums of money involved are not huge and we have already had officer discussions with SPT about taking them on. We are talking about much less than £1 million of obligations.
We might well be, but since SPT is funded by its constituent local authorities, would it not have been appropriate to consult SPT about expecting it to spend an additional £1 million?
This has nothing to do with the franchise extension.
I am not sure that SPT thinks so, since it will have a financial obligation under the extended franchise that it would not have had beyond 2009.
Dr Malcolm Reed has made it clear that it does not have such an obligation now—end of story.
Perhaps we can continue to explore that issue as we move on.
Why was it necessary to transfer responsibility for GARL from SPT to Transport Scotland?
SPT no longer takes responsibility for rail. You will be aware that before the Transport and Works (Scotland) Act 2007, which had cross-party support, was passed, it was necessary to have external sponsors, and SPT ably provided external sponsorship for the GARL project. Transferring the project at this stage, before the letting of contracts, simplifies the process. It also builds on Transport Scotland's expertise. I would not use the word "necessary"—this was the appropriate point at which to make the transfer.
How much will it cost to transfer responsibility for GARL from SPT to Transport Scotland?
The cost of the project will be determined when we let the contracts for the civil engineering work. In the light of other experience in the past year, I expect that Transport Scotland will leverage its expertise from other rail projects. Its arrangement in relation to the Airdrie to Bathgate railway substantially undercut the initial figures that Network Rail brought forward. Such expertise is increasingly evident in Transport Scotland.
Do you think that the cost will be less than expected?
We might all have different expectations, but at this stage I think that we are making the necessary progress. Mr Gordon focused on 2014, and the project is another important part of the infrastructure for that. In structuring the project, we joined the link from Paisley to the airport and the upgrade of the signalling into Glasgow Central. The potential saving could be as much as £30 million. We are looking for every opportunity to ensure that we deliver value for money.
I am interested in the savings and management benefits that you will realise from the transfer. You suggested that it is difficult to quantify the financial savings. What management benefits will there be?
You are right to focus on management benefits rather than savings. The transfer is not being done to make financial savings. That is not the primary driver, although there is potential for savings. The purpose of the transfer is to engage in the project people who have recent experience of progressing similar projects. We are not and will not be the project managers. We will let that role to others. The application of their expertise will deliver a degree of certainty because we will have people who know what difficulties are experienced as projects move forward. There are always difficulties; that is why we need a good, experienced team.
What safeguards are there to ensure that the local knowledge and expertise within SPT is harnessed, especially when an external contractor is delivering the project?
By and large, the people at SPT who have been working on the project are transferring to Transport Scotland, so the link with the existing expertise in the project will not be broken. Many of those people are contractors or consultants who have been brought in. The contracts with them will be novated to Transport Scotland, and we expect those individuals also to transfer. We are looking to maintain continuity in the personnel who are involved.
Can we expect to see a trend? Do you envisage that regional transport partnerships or local authorities will have a role in promoting and developing future major transport projects?
Most certainly. You should remember that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 took rail out of SPT and that the Transport and Works (Scotland) Act 2007 simplifies the way in which railway projects are promoted, so railway and tram projects will work differently in future. However, partnerships will continue to play an important role in setting the strategic framework within which things happen. They will also promote and progress roads, walking and cycling.
Recently, in its "BAA Market Investigation: Emerging Thinking" document on airport ownership, the Competition Commission seemed to be looking hard at whether ownership of Glasgow airport should remain unchanged. Have your officials made contingency arrangements, including those of a financial nature, to address the situation of, perforce, a change of ownership and the new owner taking a different view of the GARL project?
In general terms, one of the issues for our airports has been underinvestment. When Ferrovial bought BAA, it took on a mountain of debt. It had looked at securitising the value of Glasgow airport by selling what were essentially bonds, while retaining ownership. Considerable uncertainty could have arisen under certain circumstances in that regard.
From that, can we take it that you will strive to have contractual arrangements that are assignable to new owners?
A standard part of a contract is the inclusion of a novation clause to allow the rights and obligations under the contract to be reassigned to another party. The ability to novate is standard business practice. I would expect any such contract to contain such a clause.
Of course, we need to bear in mind that any change might be good news.
Absolutely.
I thank the minister, Mr Reed and Mr Binnie for their time. Obviously, the committee will maintain an interest in GARL and the ScotRail franchise. We will await the detail of the franchise extension that the minister will send us, and—in the longer term—the outcome of the Audit Scotland process. The committee will discuss any action that it wishes to take when we consider our work programme at a future meeting.