Item 3 is consideration of a response from the Scottish Executive on the Auditor General's report entitled "Scottish Executive: an overview of the performance of transport in Scotland". Members will recall that we decided not to hold an inquiry into the report, but wrote to Philip Rycroft at the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department. We have his reply. Would members like to comment on the letter?
It might be useful to know more about how the Executive is monitoring the national concessionary travel scheme by means of the overt and covert attention of the bus surveyors. In other words, what percentage of buses are tracked over the year? There are auditing theories about looking for and concentrating on weakest links. I would like to see more detailed information on the scheme, because it seems that it will be quite a long time before smart cards are introduced.
Here we go again. We are told that claims under the monitored national concessionary travel scheme will be checked for "reasonableness", rather than for accuracy. We are also told that
The Executive has not established any baselines. I presume that to assess the economic effect of the measure it needs to know how many older people have and have not been taking advantage of the national concessionary travel scheme, what they are doing at the moment and what they will do in the future. The scheme could provide quite a boost to the tourism industry, but we do not know about that. If we have not established baselines, what is the point of commissioning research two or three years down the line? The buses on which I travel using my senior person's bus pass are very full. It seems that it is almost too late to engage in reasonable research, but I would like to hear researchers' opinions on that.
Time and again we find that policies that are being advanced have no baselines or figures, which does not come to light until later. We are talking about policies that are agreed by Parliament. Financial resolutions tend to be tagged on to legislation, but they should be at the forefront of implementation of policy. We are dealing with a fundamental problem of good and efficient government that we encounter in one area after another. I am making a general point, rather than a specific party-political point—it applies to any Government. The problem must be dealt with.
My point is about the relationship that is being struck with the Office of Rail Regulation to benchmark new Scottish rail infrastructure projects. Given that a significant number of those projects exist—some of us have been involved in committees to ensure that those projects happen—I would have thought that such work would have been done since devolution. I seek clarification on that.
What members have said suggests that there is enough interest in seeking clarification on many issues, not least in respect of the responses to questions 1 and 4, to which Margaret Jamieson referred. Caroline Gardner has a comment on question 4.
We thought that it might be useful to point out that question 4 refers only to rail projects. Road projects are clearly separate from rail. It is worth highlighting that the Scottish Executive has much more experience of managing road projects than rail projects over a long period. We understand that it regularly meets the Highways Agency to share good practice and so on.
We certainly consider roads to be included in the phrase
Yes—with the footnote that we are yet again seeking clarification of what was supposed to have been clarified. If the Executive made matters clear when we asked straightforward questions, that would help.
To be fair, we are seeking the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department's response when we have not taken evidence or produced a report. At this stage, it is fair to seek clarification of the department's response. You are being a little unjust on the department, even though it may well deserve that.
I try not to do that, but the issue is important.
The committee agrees to write to the department to seek further information and clarification in response to the letter.