Universal benefits : good principle/often poor practice? In Scotland [ + elsewhere] today & tomorrow … & tomorrow

The Scottish media saw   a flurry of activity last  week over the apparent leaking of  a year old report from John Swinney the Cabinet Secretary that cautioned his cabinet colleagues on the balance of available revenues and the ambitions for public service improvements that they might all have.

The headlines were all about an independent Scotland not being able to afford state pension payments and various other looming disasters  that such  a constitutional change might  mean for us . It was claimed – by some – to be a huge blow to the ‘Yes’ campaign

Personally, I incline  to the view that  it’s the cover- up that will do the   damage to the Yes campaign  ;  look at Nixon [ ex President ] ; Huhne [ ex various things]. It is getting to be a b it of a habit for this SNP government  - or maybe they just get found out more often.

Reviewing  what kind of social entitlements and cash benefits we should have, and any society can afford,  and the way in which they actually serve the kind of social purpose those who introduce them  argue for,  is just the kind of discussion we should have in a mature democracy . However…….maybe we don’t really live in a mature democracy ?

I have recently been in discussions with different groups of people where ] we have talked about benefits/entitlements / costs etc . Although at one  meeting  I was labelled as  being in favour of ‘means testing ‘ the discussion in each case  was generally quite reflective .

I am not in favour of ‘means testing’ , although I must admit  if I could find another phrase that could replace that old cliché , I’d ©; ™; or ® it faster than  the speed of light and licence it to every government around, cos they’re all looking for something similar.

What I am in favour of is a  more reflective and candid discussion than we generally have about the reach and purpose of various forms of social and cash entitlements  & benefits , many of which go remarkably unexamined . The reason I argue for this is that we could then have a clearer sense of what we’re trying to achieve through our wide range of  service entitlements and cash benefits .

Consider 3  different forms of entitlement /benefit /service that are :

A] Universal in form; that available to everyone who meets certain criteria [ often age or capability related] and are totally  un-related to any individual or household income;  and

B] Either politically entrenched as a hot rail  issue for every  party or just plain taken for granted and never explored in any  broader context.

C] A benefit or service than I access  , enjoy or use so have direct participant experience of .

Now I could write pages and pages on each of these benefits, with comparison  and data to support my arguments ,  but  here  I’ve included just one factor  that I think shows why we might, at the very least,  talk about these  more thoughtfully  than we do at present .

1. In ‘The Scotsman ‘ this week-end , Tiffany Jenkins wrote a persuasive [ though poorly evidenced] commentary on maintaining free entry to galleries and museums . I’m one of those people who goes to such galleries and museums a lot , in various places throughout the UK . On that same Saturday afternoon I went to the theatre , where I was expected – and I expected – to pay for my ticket . Why are the visuals arts privileged over the performing arts – and has anyone even noticed that they are ?
2. I recently bought  a painting and paid for it ; that’s unsurprising isn’t it . The previous painting we bought – or technically are still buying – was purchase through the ‘Own Art ‘ scheme operated by Creative Scotland [ and the sister organisations in NIreland and England] . My purchase was interest free over 10 months and no deposit required . Probably the best credit terms you can get . It’s operated through Hitachi Capital – who, not being a charity ,  I imagine get their interest on the loan paid by somebody . Those of you who are taxpayers and don’t buy such pieces of art financed my  loan .Thanks for that folks; I really am grateful .
3. I have  a bus pass – or as it is technically referred to – ‘a national entitlement card ‘. Since I used to buy a monthly pass  for Lothian Buses anyway, I have  a pretty good idea what such bus access would cost me – if you could buy an all Scotland season ticket – and reckon it worth about £90 or so a month. Of course pre-tax it's worth a lot more than that to some of the beneficiaries. I am fortunate enough to live in a city with one of the best bus services in the country close to a  route where I can  get on any one of 12 or so services , rarely waiting for more 2 or 3 minutes . We have family who live in Perthshire where there is one bus service. Other than at either end of the school day , services are hourly or so , except in the evening when they are 2 hourly . In such villages, and many other parts of Scotland, access to car is a necessity rather than  an added convenience . Is a ‘transport voucher ‘ of this kind as valuable to the 000’s of people in Scotland who don’t have the same kind of access to frequent bus services of the kind I have ?

The discussion we should be having is surely that in circumstances where all resources are scarce – and they always are scarce – what’s the optimal way of organising taxes; benefits and charges  to the best advantage of those people we claim we’re doing that for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Local government after 2014; all change..whatever?

 

A slightly adapted version of a 'Comment' by me published in Sunday Herald  of Febry 24th  pp31/32:

RICHARD KERLEY

 A preview of the CoSLA conference debate on the future of local government and constitutional position of local government in a future Scotland.

To date ,   public debate on  whether we have Independence [ or not ] has centred on what relations might be created with a variety of international bodies ranging  from the other countries of the British Isles, to the United Nations and the legacy institutions of the UK such as the Crown and the DVLA . 

As for any discussion about how things might look within Scotland after 2014  it’s been pretty much limited to the Yes campaign telling us all  that it will be  ‘… much , much, better’ and   their opponents -Better Together -  bewailing how dreadful it will be .

So far there has been little serious discussion about just what changes we might expect to see in those  of our institutions which  for most people are  the reality of government  on a day to day basis. Even those who argue that we should  be talking about what kind of Scotland we might like to see,  tend to be  vague in their expression of that future condition; nicer , kinder, and fairer seems to summarise it . 

It’s a positive step that the annual conference of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities [CoSLA] will be asking Nicola Sturgeon and Alistair  Darling to tell us what they think local government in Scotland will look like after 2014.  On  the downside, I am not sure that either of them will give delegates clear and specific answers to that question. I may be wrong,  but  the demands of campaigning  tend to militate against providing certainty and specific  proposals .

It  is worth thinking  about just what might be in store for local government post 2014, because of all public service agencies it is the one that tends to provide the greatest range  and depth of services right to our doorsteps and for all generations.

However, what I suggest is that regardless of how we all vote in 2014, the future for Scotland’s 32 councils after that Referendum vote is going to be very similar, whether there is a majority Yes or a majority No vote. 

Firstly  , barring a spectacular bust up, we’ll have  an SNP government for at least 18 months [ 2 budgets ]  after October 2014 and regardless of the referendum vote  it will be under enormous pressure to achieve costs savings in those parts of the state that can be easily squeezed in order to provide popular vote winners from a still  limited budget . Even with independence , most detached commentators suggest  continuing pressure on public services for a long time ahead.

Second , we know that if we vote for independence we are promised a constitution, and I am sure  that in any such document there will be a clause  about forms of local government in the new Scotland . Such a constitutional clause  won’t say - ‘There will always be a Fife .’ At best it  will be some form of provision stating there will be some form of elected local government ; little  to say on powers, budgets, etc . and nothing on the number and therefore size and geography of our councils . 

Although the current government has continued their  2007 commitment  of no council re-organisation , after 2014 all bets will be off,  regardless of the outcome of the vote . An administrative re-organisation seems  a sure-fire way of saving money from parts of the organisation that appear to be readily dispensable with limited  impact. It probably would not be such an easy  money saver,  but it can appear an attractive easy option .   At present such enforced changes are happening in Further education , and would be in Universities too, if Mr Russell had his way. The Justice Secretary is already convinced that the merger of Police and Fire services is a success even  although this has not yet actually happened,  and the savings are proving more painful than at first claimed . ‘Mergertastic’ is a game all the Cabinet can play.

There are various voices claiming we have too many councils in Scotland, although very few people who can tell me what the ‘right ‘ number might be . Either way, post 2014 we’ll find out what the government actually thinks .

And you can read more about some of these changes in the CSPP / Herald public services supplement on 28th February .

Mid Staffs ; sameold, sameold? A case for ‘PatientAdvisor’ perhaps?

 

I’ve had a week or so to look at the Francis report, and I continue to light upon  fresh  aspects it reveals of what was a tragedy  for the many people who died – probably prematurely  and in excessive numbers – and the families who have been left to mourn them,  as well as the organisational disaster that will keep people  in discussion of  it for years.

The report –as you’d expect from a top QC – is in many places forensically detailed and  only begins to wobble when we get on to the recommendations – an awful lot of them . I tend to the view that any report that puts forward  290 recommendations has picked up the shot  gun rather than the scalpel.

And if any government [regardless of party ]  did implement them  ? You could make a good case that if implemented in full ,  proposals for more regulation and sanctions might even reinforce the ‘evade the blame ‘ culture that permeates such large complex bodies as hospitals , universities and government at all levels

The report also refers back to the legacy of earlier reports  into hospital disasters. Francis reminds us that the report into Bristol United Hospitals' Trust had many mentions of that useful old friend of professional and organisational failure: ‘hindsight ‘ . Francis ruefully  observes that in the evidence transcript for Mid Staffs , there are 123 instances of  ‘hindsight’ and 378 ‘with the benefit of hindsight ‘.

His reference to the Bristol enquiry – where it was determined that admirably enthusiastic surgeons were trying paediatric surgery beyond their reach and kids were dying – made me think about trends in such hospital  disasters and whether they come in different types  .

And there are  trends ; not all hospital disasters /scandals are the same , though they often have one feature in common ; more on that below.

Some such disasters  - I think disproportionately many – emerge from within the still  pretty closed world of care for people with mental health or learning difficulties . The Ely hospital scandal in Cardiff back in the 1960’s ; the Winterbourne assaults filmed for BBC Panorama last year . These occurred where vulnerable people were in a closed institution , in some instances people who couldn’t even express the reality of what was happening to them . Even worse , you suspect in some cases they thought that kind of treatment was normal practice.

Some scandals clearly arise from the [commendable?] ambition of some medics to pioneer new developments, developments either beneficial to them  ; their hospital or for medical science generally . Events  at Bristol and at Alder Hey [ where organs were stripped from dead infants and stored for research ] fall into that category .

No less ghastly , but probably unclassifiable ,  is  the occasional solo deviancy  of people such as Harold Shipman and the other medical staff who have exploited their position to kill or harm patients. We shall probably never know what motivated people such as these.

I think it’s interesting that  if we compare the big hospital failures such as Ely, Bristol Alder Hey, and Mid Staffs  there are common factors as well as differences, and the two that seem critical to me reflect both a changing set of society values and changing technologies .

When I looked back at the Ely Report [ 1969 ] I was surprised to find that the enquiry reported the balance of external [ family and carer ] comment on the incidents examined in various wards of Ely Hospital was generally positive – by a facto of about 5:1 as far as I can see. In Bristol, even at the GMC hearings , there were parents and family willing to publicly support the actions of surgical teams  who were considered on empirical evidence to be deficient in skills for the procedures they carried out . Even Harold Shipman had patients and patients relatives willing to provide positive comment on his medical care.

Such familial support for deficient, even neglectful and potentially criminal  practice , seems to be entirely missing at Winterbourne and in Mid Staffs. That may be because  of overwhelming evidence or it may signal the complete collapse of patient deference for medical authority . Either is significant .

The other factor that is critical in achieving comfort and assurance on the quality of health care is information . As Robert Francis observes in his summary  : “Public should  be able to compare relative performance “.

It’s worth considering  some fundamental aspects  of accessing and using such  data  :

• the starting point for the growing anxiety about Mid Staffs was the publication of atypical death rates at MS by Dr Foster , a private business  ;
• when such data was made available to decision makers in the hospital they looked the other way ; challenged the data methodology and commissioned academic research to challenge the methodology & conclusions that might be inferred from the data;
• with the benefit of that famous hindsight, or with ‘real time ‘  access to data on patient death certificates in the GP practice where Shipman worked,  someone might have noticed that over an extended period Shipman had more patients die than any of his colleagues .

Actually health service data remains very hard to access – whether in England and Wales , or in Scotland [ where we have our own hospital problems currently subject to scrutiny]. Data is  getting better , but it still remains occasionally ropey; hard to analyse and to derive any sound  conclusions from.

I’m coming round to the view that as well as all the necessary statutory initiatives, maybe, just maybe there’s a place for somebody to launch ‘Patient Advisor’.

 After all ,  a lot of people put a lot of energies into Trip Advisor, and other people pay attention to it. Not as the only word , leave alone the last word , but as a source of information they use for  a much less important decision than people entering hospital make.

Scotland – more Scandinavian ? In suicides maybe

 

I recently went to an event organised by The Church of Scotland and Mackay Hannah where we discussed ‘Ethics and Politics ‘.

One of the most interesting presentations was by Richard Wilkinson, part of the double act with Kate Picket, joint authors of The Spirit Level.

I intuitively, and on their  evidence,  I find  a lot  to agree with in their  book and their arguments . However, as I get older I get pickier and something caught my eye.

So I noticed in his presentation  of the various  aspects of equality  variance in different societies  there was one big  element missing .

What was not listed alongside various inequality factors such as  income variations  ; mental distress; lack of trust; crime rates  etc. was the subject matter of early work by Durkheim – suicide.

Seeing that omission took me back to the Wilkinson/Picket book where they do refer to suicide , but fleetingly,  as an apparent  and unexplained counterfactual to their  equality findings . “ The only social problem we have encountered which tends to be more common in more equal countries [ but not significantly  amongst more equal states in the USA ) is, perhaps surprisingly , suicide.” [ W&P,Edition 1: p175 ].

A distressing conundrum – particularly in Scotland .

 

Suicide Rates per 100000 adult pop.

Most recent data for each country  [Eurostat, OECD, ONS, GRO Scotland  & NHS Data ] varies from 2008 – 2010 and  there is acknowledged data variation that relevant reporting organisations are trying to standardise.

 

European Union /EEA	10.2
Denmark	9.9
Estonia	14.8
Latvia	17.5
Lithuania	28.5
Finland	16.8
Sweden	11.1
Iceland	11.5
Norway	10.8
Japan	23.8
USA	12.0
Scotland	14.5
Northern Ireland [ 1998-8.6 to 2010 figures..]	16.0
Wales	8.6
UK	6.4

 

Sturgeon signals shift on universality or targeting ?

 

Nicola Sturgeon [ Deputy First Minister of Scotland ]; Emile Zola [ dead French writer]; Ken Bates [ sometime chairman of Chelsea, now Leeds ].

What  a trio ; so   what can they add to the current heated discussion on universality and/or  targeting  for public services in Scotland ?

Actually , they all in different ways throw some light on  aspects of this policy conundrum  , part of a discussion that will not disappear , even if protagonists sling the most damning of comments at each other….heir of Blair…. Osborne in a kilt ….. neo –liberal  etc. …Tartan Tories.

Let’s start with Nicola Sturgeon , who , handling First Minister’s questions while Alex Salmon was recently away,  told her main opponents :

“I remind Johann Lamont gently that the people of Scotland chose: in May 2011, they overwhelmingly chose free prescription charges, a freeze on the council tax and free university education for working-class young people . “ [emphasis  RK ].

And Zola ? In The Red Lily he famously wrote that:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Ken Bates, for his part,  once offered a typically direct comment to a celebrity pressing him for a comp ticket : -

“There are no complimentary tickets; they’re just tickets somebody else has paid for .”

These three comments all have relevance to our current , and continuing, debate on Universality. They address – in this order   :

·         who we provide for   with such universal services ;

·         who actually benefits from such services ;

·         and how we make choices about what our  available tax revenues are spent on, because as all economists would say , all resources are scarce.

Start with  Nicola Sturgeon. To be fair  , she was speaking in a heated exchange , and probably extempore, but what she is recorded as saying in the Parliamentary Report is not current public policy in Scotland . Our current HE  regime doesn’t just provide under-graduate education with no direct fees  for ‘working class kids’ ; it provides that same arrangement for everybody regardless of income, or family income, if they meet the criteria for fee-free entry : status as a Scottish resident  or EU resident from countries other than the 3 other home countries of the UK  .

So does this statement [ made twice in the same session  ] signal the possibility of some policy change ?

Perhaps ; because at the same time that these statements were being made , change to means testing for student bursaries was announced by the government .

The only students to get full bursaries of £1750 per annum will be those in households with total incomes under £16999 per year, all others will be subject to some form of income assessment and no bursaries will be awarded to a student in a household with income of over £34000….universalism or means testing?

Zola? Well his famous phrase has most often been used as a powerful critique of simplistic notions of liberty .

However, it can also be applied to simplistic assumptions that  universality of provision will guarantee that all classes will take advantage of that provision . Simply because a facility or service is provided ‘free’ or with no initial entry charge does not mean it is uniformly used or enjoyed by the whole social spectrum of any population .

Higher education is actually just  example . Much of the available research data tells us that access to HE – whether there are fees or no fees – is taken up more widely by the already well educated and the already privileged . In some of the ancient Scottish universities this phenomenon is widely acknowledged – but to date very little has been done about it. Interestingly , this is an aspect of HE in Scotland that the government is now pressing  the elite universities on.

There are other examples . Many public galleries and museums do not charge  for entry to regular collections; the visitor profile is skewed up the social class scale despite this  .

It appears from early research that free eye tests for older people  , with their collateral  capacity to provide early diagnosis of various health conditions , has an uptake skewed toward  higher social class .

The reality of experience, whether in Scotland or the wider UK  is the same  whether such facilities and services are nationally provided or locally operated. Discretionary and ostensibly  universal services and facilities are most enjoyed  by the already privileged .

So, Ken Bates – what’s he got to  do with all  this ?  His  colourful  riposte  about the comp. tickets is a pretty concise and graphic metaphor for the opportunity costs associated with any decision on resources.

It is simple , readily apparent , and there are  countless examples that when resources are constrained – and they always are – choosing to spend on one activity is also a choice  not to spend on some other activity or, in technical terms ,  to misallocate resources.

Public services of most  kinds other than classic ‘public goods’  sit on a  4 dimension matrix  balanced  between the universally provided and the targeted; between those organised  free at the point of access and those that are charged for on consumption rather than through general taxation  .

The balance of this matrix  varies over time and from society to society whether it’s Scotland, Scandinavia or Texas .

We probably haven’t got that mix right in Scotland ; or elsewhere in the UK ; or indeed elsewhere outside these islands.  Discussing this is of more value than shouting about it with a tone of fake certainty.

 

 

 

 

First Group or Virgin ; chose your favourite outsourcer?

 

Sir Richard Branson has a remarkable talent ;   not necessarily for running airlines , banks or railways – he employs hard-nosed industry professionals to do that – but for securing great and usually positive media coverage for  even his most self-serving actions . We have seen that yet again over the past week or so in the manner that so many people , from commuters and rail travellers to former government ministers and people who probably never travel on a train ,  have fallen over themselves to tell us what a  tragedy it is that Virgin Rail lot the West Coast franchise to First Group.

For that you have to admire him , and also recognise that that other hard-nosed business people admire his talent for positive publicity as well. After all, when Sir Brian Souter of Stagecoach and Singapore Airlines are both willing to accept a 51:49 ownership in favour of Branson in respect of their respective joint ventures [ Rail and Air travel ] there must be good reasons for that .

What is more remarkable  in this affair  is that shadow ministers and opposition MPs  who should  be calling for the whole franchise arrangement to be wound up are – in effect – supporting  a company whose engagement in rail travel has been a form of ‘subsidy farming ‘ and who want to continue doing that for another few years .

There seem to me to be several  different aspects of this that have been overlooked in all the heat and sound .

1.       Although it is difficult to assess the overall price of  a multi - year contract agreement , for an incumbent to lose to a competitor by 10-15% of overall price is not totally unknown in  re-tendering exercises. Even before the decisions were made , investment analysts  were suggesting that First would win .

2.       The finances and returns of the various Virgin companies are hard to penetrate and understand . Overall ownership is shared in diverse forms and in some instances Virgin has secured naming rights for a very small proportion of the equity invested . Ultimate domicile and ownership of the group companies  is hard to track through various legal domiciles . It is a private company , which given the scale of business operations would normally raise some eyebrows in the city…….

3.       Because the finances are so obscure any attempt to make  a straight assessment of the income and expenditure is of limited value . Some people have tried [ the indefatigable Eion Clarke for one ] but the figures produced are so rogue they don’t help a lot .

4.       Virgin group appeared happy with the tendering process until they lost – a common reaction of unsuccessful contract incumbents – and  critically commented on by the  Financial Times yesterday .  The recent counter – proposal from Virgin Air  of wasting Heathrow slots on domestic flights from Manchester  smacks  of the most childish spite and is hardly consistent with claims to : “…Get low carbon: Strive to emit minimal carbon and other greenhouse gases.1 planet not 2: Learn to use the planet’s finite resources responsibly.”

5.       I accept that both First and Virgin are serious players in this game and so knew exactly what they were doing in their respective bids  ; if First are close in their suggestion of what can be squeezed out  in revenues over the franchise period , and Virgin had won at a lower price  , Virgin would have walked away with a substantial return . It seems clear that both companies were  gaming the system  here ?

6.       That they were both gaming the system confirms why there is now a widespread  acceptance that the Major rail privatisation was disastrous in both   form and consequences . It’s sometimes fascinating to see how The Guardian can contain Seamus Milne and Sir Simon Jenkins on the same page but on this issue both of them have been in agreement for  a long time .

Unfortunately for all of the rest of , whether as citizens or passengers , there isn’t  a party represented in Westminster  that appears willing to address the many failures of rail privatisation . Cosying  up to a man with a beard who doesn’t wear a tie is not a policy that helps retrieve our rail network .

 

 

 

 

 

Kafka’s Bus Pass

Kafka’s Bus Pass ; or Free Bus Travel at age 60 years and  ….3 or 4 weeks .

In general I am a supporter of the provision of some form of concessionary bus travel for older people.

I think it unfortunate that as a policy choice by governments  it has not been as extensively evaluated  as it might have been to see if the overall social benefits are as  great as they are sometimes  claimed to be.

I also think that for those of us on higher incomes Free Travel  should be assessed as a taxable benefit – but that’s for another time and place.

What has caught my interest recently is the experience of one applicant whom I spoke to , and what this might tell us about this administrative process  that is available to all as they reach the age of 60 [ and many younger people who have mobility problems .]

My experience of applying for   a pass a few years ago was painless, and I  recall it as relatively quick , so as is so often the case when such systems  work  you don’t pay as much attention to the processes  as much as you might .

The experience described to me by a recent applicant illustrates much of the weakness of administrative processes  in transition between paper and electronic  technologies  in a world of articulated and outsourced public services

Here’s  how this rolled out .

The application form states , boldly  in the first paragraph :  “you can apply …two weeks before your birthday , but the card will not be activated until the date of your birthday .”

The application form is completed by hand [ in black ink obviously] and a passport photo attached .

The applicant completes  the form , buys   a passport photo and takes   the completed form into the local library [ the  preferred validation point in Edinburgh] a few days before the 60th birthday - admittedly on a  Sunday  .  The applicant is warmly congratulated on completing the form correctly [ name , address , age, usual complex stuff etc. …]  as though this was a major achievement … [ although on reflection ] “..hhmm , is this a worrying sign ?”

Almost three  weeks later , no sign of the card and the applicant phones the appropriate Edinburgh contact number to be told : “ not in our  system …delays sometimes …please phone back in a  few days ..”

Calls  back a few days later applicant is told it’s:  “ not in the system …suggest you check with the library…”

The library is called . They suggest  the applicant checks with the  Edinburgh contact number that has  already been called .

 “I’ve done that , they said  to contact you … what did you do with the form ?”

“ Oh, we posted the form to Hull [ 2 days after it was completed ]”

“ Where in Hull ?”

“ Don’t know , we just post these forms  .. I suggest you try the contact centre in Edinburgh..”

Back in touch with contact centre Edinburgh .

“ I’ve spoken to the library and they say they have sent this to Hull – who can I speak to in Hull ?

“ You can’t…the forms must be  being processed”

“ How do you know it’s being processed?

“ Because it’s not in our system …”

“ But I was told 2 to 3 weeks ..”

“ But it’s not 3 weeks yet………..”

The applicant phones the library again and the library call the Edinburgh contact centre and the librarian is told : “ Well we say 3 weeks  ,   but sometimes it’s  4 or 5 weeks …”

The applicant calls the contact centre again : “ … you say it’s not on your system therefore it’s being processed [ presumably in Hull]  but you don’t know that ; it could be lost somewhere in a hole between here and Hull….. So what happens  if it’s lost ? I don’t want to wait 4 or 5 weeks to then be told it’s lost. Can I raise this with a manager .”

“ No ; I can’t report it until it’s been 3 weeks .”

“ But it’s in the 3^rd week now ..”!

“ But it is not three weeks yet!”

It’s three weeks today , and still no bus pass has arrived . 

So, the phone call loop is now extended to Transport Scotland .

Transport Scotland : “ We deal with policy; we can’t help you with actually getting a bus pass . Perhaps you could re-apply ?”  [ There'sa real signal of system confidence from people who 'do policy']

I reckon the Scottish Transport Minister , Keith Brown MSP,  now owes this applicant 2 weeks free bus travel … hope he  gets in touch.......he might manage it before the bus pass arrives .