Official Report 648KB pdf
National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2026 [Draft]
National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 [Draft]
Welcome back. Item 3 is consideration of two draft Scottish statutory instruments. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment on either of the instruments.
I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, and his supporting officials. Kelly Minio-Paluello—I probably massacred the pronunciation of your name, for which I apologise profusely—is a solicitor for the Scottish Government. From Transport Scotland, we welcome Carole Stewart, head of the bus strategy and funding policy unit; Gary McIntyre, economist, bus active travel and low-carbon economics; and Jenn Ruddick, team leader for concessionary travel.
Both instruments have been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that they cannot come into force until the Parliament approves them. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider two separate approval motions—one for each instrument. I remind everyone that officials can speak under the current item but not in the debate that follows. Minister, you may make a brief opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I will start with the draft National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2026. The order gives effect to an agreement that was reached with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents Scottish bus operators. It sets for 2026-27 the reimbursement rate and capped level of funding in the national bus travel concession schemes for older and disabled persons and young persons. The order will enable reimbursement of bus operators for journeys that are made under both schemes after the expiry of the current reimbursement provisions, on 31 March 2026. It specifies the new reimbursement rates and capped level of funding for both schemes for the next financial year, to 31 March 2027.
An updated reimbursement model for both schemes, which was agreed and developed in partnership with the industry, was used for the first time last year. This year, we have used that model once again to set the proposed rates and budget caps for the schemes. The model uses the latest available data and evidence on industry costs, passenger demand and travel behaviours. The proposed reimbursement rate for the older and disabled persons scheme in 2026-27 has been amended from 52.9 per cent to 53 per cent of the adult single fare, and the capped level of the funding will be set at £248.2 million, which is an increase of £33.1 million from this year.
The proposed reimbursement rates for the young persons scheme for 2026-27 are as follows. For five to 15-year-olds, the rate will be 48.1 per cent of the adult single fare, which is an increase of 0.2 percentage points from the current rate of 47.9 per cent. For 16 to 21-year-olds, the rate will be 72.5 per cent, which is an increase of 0.1 percentage points from the current rate of 72.4 per cent. Since it began, in 2022, the young persons scheme has not been subject to a budget cap, as demand and patronage have been uncertain while the scheme has become established. However, demand is now relatively stable, with uptake by young people reaching around 90 per cent of the eligible population. The draft order before you therefore includes a budget cap of £220.6 million to be applied to the young persons scheme for 2026-27.
The national concessionary travel schemes continue to deliver life-changing benefits, supporting social inclusion, embedding sustainable travel habits and supporting 2.4 million card holders to access essential services. The draft order being discussed today will ensure that we can continue to deliver those successful, highly valued schemes, which provide a degree of stability to the bus sector on a basis that is fair to operators and affordable from public funds. I recommend that the draft order be approved.
Are you going to talk about the other order at the same time?
The two Scottish statutory instruments are completely different. They are not linked.
I understand that. We will take a decision on them later. I am happy to go to questions on both instruments, if you would like to do it that way, minister. I would be happy with that.
If we could deal with the first order first.
Let us keep it simple. I agree.
Turning first to the concessionary travel one, I ask you to help me. The two concessionary fare schemes amount to about £468.6 million. The level 3 line for concessionary fares in the budget is £472.8 million, so there is a difference of about £4 million. Could you explain that to me?
The level of reimbursement is £468.6 million, as you say. The additional £3 million or £4 million will be related to the operational costs of running the scheme—not the actual reimbursement of operators, but the operational costs of administering the scheme itself.
That is £4 million.
Yes.
That seems quite a large figure, does it not? Who gets that £4 million? Is it bus operators, for running the scheme, on top of the tickets? I am now totally confused. I have never picked up, in 10 years of looking at such things, that there is a £4 million admin charge.
Are you going to help me, Monica?
No—I might have misheard. Is this about the operational costs—the costs of running the scheme?
Yes.
So—
We have not had an answer yet. I am trying to work out who gets that £4 million.
On the reimbursement figure, which is the money that goes to the operators for carrying passengers on the scheme, there are additional costs for administering the scheme itself, to cover the staff who are involved in running the scheme, the concessionary travel products and the back-office systems that relate to paying operators. I do not know whether those costs total £4 million, but there is additional money in the budget to allow for those expenses, on top of the money that goes to operators for carrying passengers.
So, it goes to the operators for all the back-office-run things.
No—
If it does not go to the operators, does it go to the Government? Is it a Government expense, for all the civil servants running the scheme?
It is a Transport Scotland expense for running the scheme itself.
It seems quite a large sum.
This is an interesting place to start. The £4 million is effectively the cost of running the scheme, so that people can have their concessionary travel cards. Will that cover staffing costs?
Staffing costs will be part of it. I cannot confirm whether £4 million is the figure for this part of the scheme, but there is money allocated in the budget to allow for the expenses of running the scheme itself. So, yes—that covers the staff costs and the back-office costs of the system itself.
The minister perhaps knows the answer.
If the committee would like a breakdown of what that is, I will have officials send that on to the committee.
That would be jolly helpful, as £4 million seems quite a large amount of money. It would be nice to know where it is going.
Sorry—please continue, Monica.
It is disappointing that we cannot get clarity on that just now, given that the minister is here with four officials.
That figure is 1 per cent of the cost of the entire scheme. It may sound like a large figure in its own right, but a hell of a lot of work goes on behind the scenes in administering the scheme. If the committee would like a proper breakdown of that sum, however, I would be more than happy to provide that if we can do so.
I think that that would be helpful. Percentage figures often hide the true cost. We are talking about £4 million. It might be only 1 per cent, but £4 million is £4 million of anyone’s money. It is a huge amount of money to me.
It would be helpful if the committee could compare like for like. It is probably not something to discuss this morning, but, when you come back to the committee, it would be helpful if we could have the values from previous budgets.
Four million pounds is a sizeable amount, but we do not know whether that amount has gone up from £3 million in previous budgets, whether it has gone down or whether it is holding steady. The question relates more to the budget than to the statutory instrument that we are considering. However, it would be helpful to have that figure set in context.
Kevin Stewart might have some knowledge that can help us.
I would not say that I have knowledge, but the minister is correct in saying that 1 per cent is not a huge amount for the administration of any scheme. If most schemes were run with 1 per cent spent on admin costs, that would be good.
The minister has agreed to send a breakdown to the committee. It would be useful for us to see every aspect of the administration cost, including for the scrutiny of the schemes, because some folk have questioned whether there could be abuses of the scheme by operators through ticketing and all the rest of it.
When I was the minister for transport for a short period of time, I asked for a fair amount of scrutiny, to ensure that we were getting the best value for money. If we could have those breakdowns—including scrutiny of the 1 per cent—that would be wonderful.
Are you nodding at that, minister?
Yes.
I have a couple more questions, but Mark Ruskell also has one, so I will bring him in first.
Do 2.2 million people benefit from the two schemes?
Yes.
Okay. Well, £4 million seems like quite a low amount.
I want to talk about the overall spend, though. We are looking at £472.8 million—half of the Scottish bus industry’s income. The industry says that the scheme is neither a benefit nor a disbenefit to it, but, when we see those figures, it is hard to see how it is not a massive benefit to the industry when substantial numbers of people travel by bus who would not do so were it not for the Government’s investment in the schemes, which is very welcome.
How do we get more out of this? What about the conditionality for the bus companies? What about the linkage with investment in better bus services at either a community level or a regional level? What about the Government’s target for a vehicle mileage reduction? Are we getting the most out of the investment? Could we be hitting other public transport policy objectives by using the existence of the cards and the massive investment as a lever to get more bang for our buck?
The purpose of the order is to ensure that the scheme continues. I think that everyone on the committee agrees that it is a good scheme and that we want it to continue. It is helping to shape travel habits.
As to whether it is giving us the best bang for our buck, the fair fares review said that we would review the scheme, so it will be for the next Parliament to consider that. You are right to say that it is a substantial amount of money, but it is an investment, and it is working for the people of Scotland.
From the conversations that I have had—with younger people, in particular—I know that the scheme has given people access to education and employment and that it has allowed them to keep up with friends and family. The value to those who use the scheme is enormous.
Is it doing enough to get more people out of their cars and using public transport? Is there more to be done on that? Are there other ways that we can use it? There are always different ways to look at it. I am quite sure that the next Parliament will look at the spend on the scheme and ask whether we are getting as much as we want out of it. Another Government might take a different view to the current one. We will just have to wait and see what the next Government says.
What does Transport Scotland think about it? Does it have any creative ideas as to how we could use that huge investment to get more people out of their cars? What is the offer for people out there? Are we linking this with travel planning for colleges, universities and workplaces? I do not know. As a transport policy, this has been fantastic, and it is a great initiative that supports individuals. However, when it comes to all the wider transport issues that we are really struggling with at the moment, how do we use this to drive modal shift? That is the key question. What do your officials have to say about that?
11:00
This is only one aspect of the offering with regard to creating better public transport and better travel options. As members are well aware, huge amounts of money have gone into active travel, too. Is there more that we can do? Of course there is. There will always be more that we can do, and that review is on-going.
Carole Stewart might want to say something about the bus infrastructure fund, the plugged-in communities grant fund and all the other things that we are doing to make bus travel an attractive option.
What about putting conditions on bus companies? If they benefit from this scheme, they should not be, say, cutting rural bus services. What about that kind of conditionality?
The condition in the particular scheme in this SSI is that companies will be left no better and no worse off. This is not seen as a direct benefit in terms of putting more people on buses; it is a no better, no worse approach, which is why the rate goes up or down slightly.
But we are talking about half the bus industry’s income. How can that be a no better, no worse approach? Would the industry miss it if this money disappeared?
That would very much depend on how many people continued to use the bus. A lot of people have no choice but to use the bus, and they would end up paying for it themselves. The people who would be hurt would be the passengers, not the bus companies.
Do your officials have any thoughts on conditionality?
It is something to look at in the next parliamentary session. A lot of different policy options could be explored with regard to improving bus services—for example, implementing the powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, putting in place specific provision to support rural services in other areas and linking the schemes with car reduction policies on a regional basis. A whole suite of policy options could sit alongside, or be integrated slightly better with, the concessionary travel schemes.
Thanks.
I have one last question. I am aware that, at long last, a scheme has been put in place to extend concessionary bus travel to people trapped in the asylum system, who have no recourse to public funds and are effectively destitute. However, I believe that the current budget for the scheme will end on 31 March. Will the Government extend that provision into next year?
That would be a decision for the Cabinet, not for me.
Before I bring in Monica Lennon, I should, for clarity, declare what I think I declared at the previous meeting on this matter, which is that I am entitled to a free bus pass. I am sure that no one else on the committee has to worry about that, but I am over 60.
On that note, I will move swiftly on to Monica Lennon.
I will make no such declaration, convener.
Minister, I want to pick up on what you said about young people and those in education telling you that the scheme has been a game changer for them and that they really value it. As we know, the scheme is about opening up opportunities for young people, as well as changing behaviours; indeed, you said that it was habit forming. In the conversations that you are having, are you open to the scheme being expanded so that young people who go over the age of 22 but who are still in education and training can continue to benefit from it? At the moment, just as they have started to get used to the bus they no longer have the benefit of the card. Where do you sit on that issue?
Again, that will be part of the discussion on how the budget for the schemes is used and whether the next Parliament decides it wants to take such a decision. What we are discussing today is the SSI in front of us, which is about reimbursement rates. You are taking the conversation into the area of policy decisions that will be made by whoever forms the next Government.
Committees are always curious about ministers’ views. You have had these conversations with young people, and you have said that they are talking about the benefits of the scheme. We are exploring what more could be done in policy terms. Would the sort of extension that I have referred to be desirable, if the funding were available?
My view is that the scheme has been exceptionally successful. I am very proud of it, and I think that the Government should be very proud of the fact that it has brought it in. The next Government might decide to expand it, but that will be a decision for it.
Thank you.
Bob Doris and Douglas Lumsden have follow-up questions.
My question will be very brief, convener, because I feel that we are drifting somewhat from the instrument before us.
I ask the minister to exercise a bit of caution in any initial thoughts on how we could better use that quantum of cash. We have already had a bid from Mr Ruskell, understandably, on conditionality on rural services, and from Ms Lennon on jobseekers and colleges. Once a young person no longer qualifies for concessionary travel, lots of other things will be put into the mix, including regionalised aspects of the cash that goes to bus companies in Strathclyde and other regions. Strathclyde currently has franchising, for example. Before we come to a decision, we could take stock, more generally, of that quantum of cash, and work in partnership with regional transport authorities—perhaps giving them a bit more power. I ask the minister to be slightly cautious and to carry out a wider review, without any preconceived outcomes.
I have no preconceived outcomes whatsoever. Carole Stewart talked eloquently about all the things that could be done differently if the next Government chooses to do them, but those are decisions for the next Government and the next session of Parliament.
How much does free bus travel for asylum seekers cost per year? Is it within the £468.8 million figure for next year? I assume that it is not, because you have not decided on it.
The asylum scheme is a pilot scheme. It is budgeted at £2 million, but, beyond that, those are budget questions that you would have to ask the cabinet secretary.
So that £468.8 million does not include asylum seeker travel.
People seeking asylum in Scotland who are already eligible for the national concessionary travel scheme on the basis that they are under 22, over 60 or have an eligible disability are included in that overall figure.
But all the others who are aged between 22 and 60 are not included in the £468.8 million figure. Is that correct?
That is the additional £2 million.
At present, it is not in the budget, so it would need to be added to the budget if the scheme were to continue past March. Is that correct, minister?
Yes.
Is there any evidence that concessionary travel for under-22s has reduced the demand on school transport? I am intrigued by whether there is any crossover there, because it might have an effect on school transport.
There has been anecdotal evidence that some local authorities—I will be careful how I word this—are encouraging the use of an under-22 pass as an alternative to having dedicated school transport. There is evidence that that is being done in some areas.
That might be something for the next Government and the next minister to look at.
We move to The National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which relates to the code of conduct. Minister, do you want to make a brief opening statement?
Okay. As we have discussed, the free bus travel provided by the national concessionary travel scheme is invaluable to those who use it—it provides life-changing benefits for many people. As the committee is aware, the legislation being introduced today is designed to protect those benefits by increasing safety on the bus network and ensuring that a small minority of cardholders who engage in antisocial behaviour are deterred from doing so. That policy has been asked for by members of the public, politicians and the bus sector itself.
The legislation will allow access to concessionary travel to be suspended or withdrawn from anyone who breaches the code of conduct. It sets out appropriate behaviour for those travelling on the bus network who are using their entitlement to free bus travel. The code will explain the kinds of behaviours that might result in suspension of concessionary travel and will apply to all cardholders, regardless of age.
A draft of the code has been shared with the committee to aid its scrutiny of the instrument. The definition of antisocial behaviour in section 143 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is deliberately broad. That reflects the fact that the exhaustive list of behaviour considered antisocial by the Government would be unworkable and anomalous. For the same reason, the draft code of conduct does not include a comprehensive list of behaviours, but broadly outlines the behaviours that might have a significant impact on bus drivers or other passengers.
Given the impact that the suspension might have on a cardholder, the code is designed to ensure that withdrawal or suspension of free travel is considered only by exception and that it is proportionate.
To support enforcement of the code of conduct, officials are developing supporting policies relating to reporting, suspension and review of any decisions to suspend. I have provided a high-level written overview of what is being considered regarding these procedures, but we will continue our approach of close collaboration with stakeholders to finalise the procedures.
Before I take questions, I want to be clear that our phased approach to implementation is appropriate and necessary. It is essential that we establish a fair and robust process that considers business impacts, child wellbeing and poverty considerations, data implications and options to phase in the policy to ensure that it is known to users, and that we address any operational issues. The instrument will secure the enabling power for the policy and send a clear message that antisocial behaviour on the bus network will not be tolerated. It will provide a strong foundation for Transport Scotland to continue the work with operators and partners—which strongly support the legislation—to finalise the supporting procedures.
I am happy to take any questions. I move the motion and recommend that the draft order be approved.
You will get a chance to move the motion under the next item, so that is fine.
I am looking round committee members to see whether anyone wants to ask questions on the draft order.
Keith Rollinson, a bus driver in Elgin, was killed in February 2024. When his killer is released, he will still be entitled to a free bus pass. Can you guarantee to us that, if Parliament approves the order, Keith Rollinson’s killer will not be allowed free travel on the buses again?
I am sorry, convener, but I cannot answer questions about individual cases.
Let us not make it about an individual case. Instead, let us assume that somebody who has killed a bus driver is due to be released. Will the order that we are being asked to approve stop the situation where the colleagues of the person who was killed are forced to take that killer back on board free of charge? Can you guarantee that approving the order will stop that situation?
The purpose of the order is to allow Transport Scotland to take actions to remove a bus pass from someone who is committing antisocial behaviour. I am not going to comment on the death of Mr Rollinson and I am not going to go any further with this conversation about him. I think that it is inappropriate and disrespectful. I am sorry, Mr Lumsden, but I am finding it really distasteful, because we are discussing an order that is about antisocial behaviour going forward, not about something that has happened in the past. I cannot give guarantees on anything in relation to Mr Rollinson’s position, and I would rather not discuss Mr Rollinson’s position.
Mr Lumsden, I will try to steer a way through this so that I can understand it myself.
Minister, the draft code of conduct that you submitted with your letter says that acting
“in a way that hurts or threatens others”
could result in the loss of entitlement to free travel.
Let us take a step back, if I may, minister. If somebody is hurt by a person who is entitled to concessionary travel, the person who did that would be in contravention of your draft code of conduct. Is that right?
Yes, they would be.
Right. Under this code of conduct, when the bus company or Police Scotland reports breaking of the rules, Transport Scotland has three options: do nothing; send the person a warning letter; or suspend their free travel.
Correct.
Could you confirm whether suspending free travel could be done for the entire duration of the concessionary pass if the hurt were sufficiently serious?
That decision will be made by Transport Scotland as it goes through the process. As stated in the letter that I sent you, Transport Scotland will go through all the procedures that you have just outlined and will give the person the chance to put their case on the incident. Subsequently, it will be for Transport Scotland to decide whether there should be a temporary or permanent removal of the entitlement to free travel.
Thank you for clarifying that. The word that I was looking for was “permanent”—that it could be a permanent removal if the offence were considered serious enough.
That would be an operational decision for Transport Scotland to make.
11:15
I am not asking you to make the decision, I am trying to understand the draft code of conduct.
I hand back to Douglas Lumsden. Do you have a further question to ask?
I do. If the antisocial behaviour happens in the bus station and not on the bus, I presume that the code of conduct would not apply and that there would be no basis to remove free travel from that person. Is that right?
This SSI is about during the transport, which is when they are on the bus.
Do you think that that scope is wide enough or should it be reviewed in the future?
The order that is currently in front of us is about what happens on the bus. If other antisocial behaviour issues need to be dealt with, Police Scotland and the criminal justice system will deal with them.
Can I just try to help with this? A lot of buses start from a central depot with a stance that the bus pulls into and then pulls away from. Are you saying that if the antisocial behaviour happened on the stance rather than on the bus, this order would not cover it?
No, it would not. It is about what happens during the travel.
It is purely about when the person puts their foot on the bus.
Yes.
So, for argument’s sake—and I do not foresee myself being in this position—if I were rude and abusive to everyone around me, including the bus driver and anyone else, before I got on the bus, would I not lose my concessionary travel?
No, you would not, because the instrument is about behaviour on the bus.
Okay. I am sorry to jump in, Douglas.
That is all—I just wanted that clarified, convener.
Members have lots of other questions. I will come to Mark Ruskell next.
To be honest, I am still struggling with this. The order does not prevent violent and abusive people from getting on to buses; it only means that their entitlement card will be suspended. They could quite easily walk on to a bus and pay a fare.
I am trying to understand the relationship with the wider conditions of carriage, which apply to everybody who gets on a bus, regardless of whether they are a young person, disabled, an older person or whatever. Most bus companies—all the bus companies in Scotland, I think—have conditions of carriage and they all cover threatening, abusive, dangerous and unsafe behaviour. That seems like the nub of the problem that we are talking about.
Minister, you say that this order is completely separate to any action that operators might take in relation to conditions of carriage.
Correct.
Surely the conditions of carriage are the central issue. It is about why certain people are allowed to travel on buses and yet, potentially, they will abuse people or be rude or abusive. How is the Government dealing with that issue? That is not about what age they are or whether they have a disability; it is about whether they should allowed on buses—full stop. I am struggling to see how this measure will deter anybody who is serious about abusing people and causing a nuisance on public transport. Do you see where I am coming from?
I see where you are coming from. I think that you are trying to use the ability to remove the bus pass as a cure for antisocial behaviour across society—but it is not. The order is about protecting people who are travelling on the buses. When they are travelling on the buses, if people are carrying out antisocial behaviour, a sanction can be placed on them and that should be used as a deterrent. I hope that very few people, if any, will have their passes removed from them, because the threat of the deterrent should be enough to make them behave in a way that is appropriate.
A letter was received from the following representatives of bus companies: Sarah Boyd from Lothian Group; Duncan Cameron from First Bus Scotland; Colin Craig from West Coast Motors; Fiona Docherty from Stagecoach Ltd; Alistair Todd from Todd’s Travel; Simone Walsh from Scottish Citylink; Sandra Whitelaw from Whitelaws; and Tony Williamson from McGill’s. It said:
“There have been queries as to why a national approach to this is required, rather than it being dealt with locally through our own Conditions of Carriage. We believe that as the Concessions Schemes are National Entitlements (rather than determined at the local level) they should be accompanied by a national standard of conduct and potential sanction.”
The bus companies are asking the Parliament and the Government to do this for them, but that does not remove their ability to use their conditions of carriage.
Would a better approach not be to have national conditions of carriage that apply to everybody, and to look at ways of enforcing them? This committee received evidence from West Midlands Police, which has introduced a travel safe team on buses, as we are doing with ScotRail, to make sure that the buses there are safe.
We have also had evidence to suggest that those who are perpetrating antisocial behaviour on buses are often males over the age of 22, who are not affected by the concessionary schemes because they are not eligible for them. I am trying to understand the Government’s national approach to enforcing conditions of carriage and making progress in that regard.
Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs announced, in relation to the railways, 11 key actions that have been agreed with the unions to make our railways safer. I am just not seeing it with the approach that we are discussing. I am seeing the bus companies arguing for a restriction on the national entitlement card, but I do not see evidence that that will lead to any behaviour change whatsoever.
Finally, I will ask about the consultation on the code of conduct. Clearly, bus companies have been calling for it to be brought in for a long time and have been part of those conversations. However, have you engaged with organisations that understand young people in particular, such as the Young Scot card operators and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland? How have they been involved? If you are talking about changing behaviours, it is really about getting inside people’s heads and thinking about motivations and how you turn the situation around. I am not seeing the involvement of the Scottish Youth Parliament or organisations that work with young people in the production of the code of conduct, but perhaps you will want to inform me otherwise.
There are a number of different points in there, so you will have to forgive me if I forget some of them. You will have to come back and remind me of the issues that you have raised.
The removal of a pass will not solve all antisocial behaviour. You are absolutely right that there will be people over the age of 22 and under the age of 60 who commit antisocial behaviour, and those people will be dealt with through the conditions of carriage of the relevant bus company.
Should we have national conditions of carriage? You might be able to do that if you had a national bus company, but we do not. We have individual private companies that have their own conditions of carriage. The concessionary travel scheme is a national scheme that is delivered by the Government through Transport Scotland, so the bus companies are asking for a national approach and conditions of carriage for the scheme itself. That is what they have asked us for.
On how we change behaviour, we are dealing with a wide range of measures. Siobhian Brown has been carrying out work on antisocial behaviour. We will be engaging with education facilities to ensure that young people understand the conditions of the scheme, as well as with older and disabled people, so that they also understand the conditions of the scheme. They will be given that information when they are given their passes.
We have engaged very widely, including with the Scottish Youth Parliament. We did not engage directly with the Young Scot card administrators before we announced that the order was being laid, but there has been a lot of engagement with young people themselves. The Scottish Youth Parliament asked for direct correspondence and engagement with Carole Stewart and her colleague. Carole sat down with the Scottish Youth Parliament to discuss what it meant for those young people.
Some of the SYP members’ concerns were about how they felt on buses. We know that there is a wider societal issue of antisocial behaviour, and the removal of a bus pass will not solve all of that, but the SSI will allow us to have in place a deterrent, which has been asked for by the bus companies, by transport users and by the Parliament. That is what we are delivering.
Convener, I would like to ask a couple of specific questions about the code of conduct, if that is okay.
As long as you are brief.
The issue that I want to address is quite narrow compared with what is covered in the conditions of carriage. I know from talking to groups such as Engender that work to tackle violence against women and girls, that they would perhaps call for types of harassment to be specified in the code. At the moment, the code refers to “any kind of harassment”. It does not refer specifically to sexual harassment, which we know is a major issue for women and girls on public transport. I am curious about why the code makes a broad reference to harassment without specifying sexual harassment.
The code also mentions indecent language, which I do not think is included in many of the operator conditions of carriage. I am thinking about how members of staff such as bus drivers will police that. What is considered indecent language? What kind of training will be available? It will not be members of the public who will report such instances; it will be hard-working bus drivers and other operatives who will have to make a judgment about whether someone has crossed the line.
You are asking why the code is not more specific.
That was the view that I got when I spoke to Engender about the issue in relation to violence against women and girls. It was surprised that sexual harassment is not spelled out in the code.
It should not have to be spelled out that violence against women and girls is not acceptable. We should tackle that issue at every opportunity and in every setting, not just on buses. It should not be considered only in the context of whether folk get a bus pass. The challenge that we face in tackling violence against women and girls is far broader than that.
The code is laid out in broad terms in order to allow judgment to be exercised as to whether a pass should be removed. As we discussed with the convener, a determination will be made after the process has been gone through. In making that judgment, Transport Scotland will ask the person who has been reported what they believe the situation was. The decision will be made by Transport Scotland.
As far as abusive, threatening or indecent language is concerned, that will be a judgment for Transport Scotland to make, because that is an operational issue.
It is also a judgment that bus drivers will have to make in compiling the evidence for various types of harassment and indecent language.
What kind of national support or guidance will there be to ensure that, regardless of whether we are talking about buses in Aberdeen, Edinburgh or anywhere else, people will have a full understanding of what the code of conduct means and what evidence will need to be gathered? At a previous meeting, Sarah Boyack raised the issue of people who have Tourette’s syndrome. Would what they say be considered indecent language?
If someone uses indecent language and it is then discovered that they have Tourette’s as part of the process that is gone through to decide whether their bus pass should be removed, Transport Scotland will come to the appropriate conclusion. It is up to Transport Scotland to make such operational decisions.
Several members have follow-up questions.
In order for us to make a judgment on the instrument, we need to fully understand the Government’s intention. What I am not hearing clearly enough—I am giving you an opportunity to put this on the record so that people who are listening understand the Government’s position—is that the Government takes a zero-tolerance approach to not just antisocial behaviour but serious violence and abuse on Scotland’s buses.
There are people at home and people at work who are frightened to go on a bus. To have a free bus pass or to be able to use Scotland’s buses is a privilege. If people do not respect that and do not have due regard for others, that puts other people at risk and, frankly, it keeps people off our public transport network. Is it the Government’s intention to be robust and to be straight with people who are the victims of crime in saying that the Government is on their side and has their back, rather than it just being a matter of the issue being considered by officials and every case being looked at individually?
Colleagues have alluded to very serious crimes that have happened. Mark Ruskell is right to say that we must name crimes such as sexual assault and not just hide such incidents behind the language of antisocial behaviour.
Does the minister agree with the points that I am making? On reflection, to people in Scotland who are behaving badly and who are engaging in criminality, is it clear that the measure that you have put forward today will cover the whole spectrum of behaviour? Does the minister recognise that, if we talk about antisocial behaviour, that sounds like behaviour at the lower end of the spectrum?
11:30
You are talking about two different things. Is there zero tolerance of violence? Absolutely—of course there is and, in particular, there is zero tolerance of violence against women and girls. I would not be vague about that.
Where is the messaging on that? For anyone who is thinking about getting on a bus today or tomorrow and behaving in a way that is beyond the pale, where is the messaging from the Government that that is not acceptable?
Again, messaging goes beyond what the scheme is trying to do. The antisocial behaviour—
It is important to understand the policy intention. If the intention is zero tolerance of crime and—
Which is criminality.
Yes, so why are we just talking about antisocial behaviour?
We already have zero tolerance of criminality and the justiciary will go through the process to prosecute criminality. What we are talking about is antisocial behaviour, which is a different thing. If there is criminal behaviour, the police and other authorities carry out the processes that they have to carry out to deal with that. This is about giving Transport Scotland the ability to remove the entitlement to a bus pass if somebody is displaying antisocial behaviour, being foul and abusive, hurting someone physically or harassing people in any way.
We are discussing two different things here. I absolutely agree, 100 per cent, that there is zero tolerance of violence; I could not agree more. However, that is not what this is. The direct result of somebody committing violence and then being convicted of a crime is, in all likelihood, that they will lose their use of a bus pass, but that would be incidental to the fact that they have been prosecuted for criminality.
You are saying “likelihood”. I do not know whether victims and families affected by crimes that have happened on buses feel that the Government fully has their back on this.
I disagree entirely with that.
Sorry—I want to try to help in this situation. I know that Monica feels passionately about this; that is very clear. If somebody commits a criminal offence outwith a bus, how will Transport Scotland know to remove the privilege—I agree with people who have described it as a privilege—of having concessionary travel? Transport Scotland will not know, will it, minister?
Your question is about when somebody commits an offence outside of a bus, but that is not what the SSI is—
I know. That is what I am trying to get at.
That is not what the SSI is designed to do. It is not designed to deal with antisocial behaviour across society.
However, if the offence is criminality on a bus, they will lose it.
I am not going to say what Transport Scotland’s decision would be, because Transport Scotland would have to go through the process. However, if somebody is carrying out criminality on a bus, my expectation is that Transport Scotland would go through the process, ensure that it is being robust and take the appropriate action.
Okay. Monica, I apologise if I have been unhelpful. I was trying to find something out. Back to you.
It is not about a personal passion of mine; it is about the perception out there in the country. There are many people, particularly women and girls and marginalised people, who do not feel safe on the bus. What I am getting at with the message of zero tolerance is not about us just talking about it in rooms such as this; it is about how the Government gets that message out there. With all the partners that you work with, minister, how will you get it out there loudly and clearly?
We have to deal with the instrument that is in front of us. I have sat in rooms in the Parliament with the minister, cross-party colleagues, bus operators and the police when there has been a genuine request to the minister to act in an urgent manner. Sadly, I do not think that we have seen that today, but we are where we are.
I want to ask about the right to review. If someone who has been told that they can no longer have their bus pass because of their conduct can ask for a review or an appeal, what criteria will Transport Scotland look at? In what situation could someone who is a violent killer or someone who has sexually assaulted women and girls on a bus be successful with that appeal?
First, I will push back on what Monica Lennon said to me, which is that the scheme was asked for urgently and that it has not been delivered well. It has been delivered as quickly as was possible. As we go through these conversations, the complexity of what is involved is quite clear—it is not simply a case of somebody being able to say, “I’m having your bus pass.” It is far more complex than that. Several issues must be considered, and it will take time to get it right. If we want speed, we can get it, and we will get a scheme that will not work in the way that it is expected to work, or we can ensure that it is done properly so that people get a full understanding of what it will do.
Secondly, on the question that you have asked about the reviews, those will be an operational decision for Transport Scotland, which will work with partners—including operators and the young and older people who will be affected by the scheme—to work out the appropriate results. Those partners will look at the operational aspects in order to get the process to where it needs to be. The SSI is about giving the power to be able to do so, and it is not unusual for us in the Parliament to work through the guidance and policy development with the partners that will be on the ground doing it.
I must come back in. I will try to keep my remarks short. I am listening carefully, minister, but every time that you are asked for clarification, you seem to delegate that answer somewhere else. The Parliament will want to know what we are being asked to support, both today and when the matter goes to the Parliament. I will not mention individual cases, but members of the Parliament will have in their minds cases of very serious violence and sexual assault, and other cases, in their constituencies or regions. However, you are not able to tell the Parliament what your intention is.
You are the minister, you have the responsibility and a lot of influence here, but you do not know what criteria would be available or when it would be acceptable for someone who has sexually assaulted a passenger or a bus driver to retain a bus pass or win an appeal. It seems that you have no view on that and are happy to leave the matter to others to decide on in the future.
I am sorry, but you are mischaracterising what I have said—
So, you do have a view. Will you please tell us what it is?
It is not about whether I have a view. It is about the process that we are putting in place and about the fact that the Parliament and stakeholders are asking us to put an SSI in place to allow the Government and Transport Scotland to go through a process to remove somebody’s right to have free bus travel.
I am afraid that you are completely mischaracterising what has been discussed, which is unfortunate, because I hoped that, given that it has been a demand from the entire Parliament, we would get to the point at which the SSI gets passed.
This is called scrutiny. In what situation, minister, do you think that it is okay that someone who has seriously harmed a passenger or a bus driver should be allowed to retain their free bus pass or win an appeal to get it back? Please tell me in what circumstance that is okay.
We have already discussed that. If an incident takes place on a bus, Transport Scotland will scrutinise that in conjunction with the discussions that it has had with stakeholders about whether it is appropriate to remove a bus pass. We will not sit here and give a prescriptive list.
I have also said that the instrument is deliberately broad to allow the proper scrutiny by Transport Scotland, in its wisdom, to decide whether the pass should be removed.
As you have designed the instrument, there will be discretion for civil servants to decide that someone who has committed a serious crime and caused harm to others would be able to continue to use the bus with a concessionary travel card.
That is not what we have done; again, you are mischaracterising what has been said. The draft code of conduct is quite clear that someone could lose their pass if they
“act in a way that hurts or threatens others.”
It includes some examples of that, such as hurting someone physically, which is a criminal act; using abusive, threatening or indecent language; any kind of harassment, such as racial abuse; and how it would be decided that it is antisocial behaviour. Mark Ruskell asked what would happen if someone was using indecent language and they have Tourette’s. Transport Scotland officials will have to look at that before any decision is made about whether to remove the individual’s bus pass. Those decisions would have to be made on an individual basis.
More importantly, I very much hope that the code will act as a deterrent and that it will not be a normal process to remove someone’s bus pass. It is about antisocial behaviour on buses; it will not solve the criminal justice system across Scotland.
I will hand back to the convener, but it is unfortunate that the minister has been extremely vague. We are designing a process that could allow for any number of outcomes. I am asking the minister not to get drawn into individual cases, but whether it is his intention that someone who has committed a serious crime on a bus or has displayed antisocial behaviour could retain their right to use their bus pass. He cannot rule that out. I feel that it is a straightforward question.
We have taken it round the houses and I am not sure that we have got any further or that you have received a satisfactory answer. I have to move on to other questions; I apologise, Monica.
Good morning. I want to step back from the exchange with Monica Lennon and deal with the process. If an individual committed an offence on the bus, what evidential threshold would be used for determining any decision to remove their bus pass?
Again, that will have to be worked through with Transport Scotland’s officials and stakeholders, and it would have to be done on an individual basis, because there is a huge amount of complexity in this area. I cannot tell you what the exact threshold will be, because it would have to be worked out individually.
I am not asking for the exact threshold. I presume that the decision would be made on the balance of probabilities, rather than a requirement that the evidence was beyond reasonable doubt. I am trying to establish the evidential threshold.
It would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter and, therefore, I presume that the threshold would be the balance of probabilities. A criminal matter in the courts has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt but, obviously, a court of law will not be determining those matters.
As I said in my opening exchange with the convener, 95 per cent of buses in Scotland now have closed-circuit television. There will be reports from the driver and potentially other passengers. When a report is made, the evidence will be presented to Transport Scotland’s officials, who will go through the process to work out whether or not the balance has been crossed that would allow someone’s pass to be taken away from them.
I will ask the lawyer who is at the meeting. Kelly Minio-Paluello, what threshold is intended for the scheme to operate?
As you said, it would not be a criminal matter, so there would not be a requirement to have that evidential basis. Transport Scotland, in consultation with stakeholders, is working through a proper, fair and accountable process.
So, decisions would be made on the balance of probabilities
There is no requirement—
If it the threshold was going to be beyond reasonable doubt, you would have to call witnesses—
There is no requirement for a matter to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, as it is not the same process as for criminal matters.
If there was that requirement, you would have to be calling witnesses, et cetera, so decisions will have to be made on the balance of probabilities. Surely, that is the settled position.
That means that, if someone commits an offence on a bus and they are subsequently convicted for it in a criminal court, they will lose their pass. It does not matter what the offence is. As soon as that person is convicted, they will have been convicted on a higher threshold than is required for the removal of their bus pass. It seems to me that, if someone commits a serious offence on a bus and they are convicted of it, they will lose their pass—without a doubt.
And I have said that that would be my expectation, but it will not be a ministerial decision.
11:45
I understand that—I am not asking whose decision it is. I am just trying to establish the point that there has to be an evidential threshold, and that that evidential threshold has to be the balance of probabilities. Indeed, I cannot see how you can do it any other way, unless you are going to set up a court of law just to deal with bus passes. If someone commits an offence on a bus, and they are subsequently convicted of it in a criminal court, their bus pass will go, because they will have exceeded the threshold that would justify its removal. We should be clear about that, and I think that that deals with the question whether someone who commits a sexual offence on a bus and is convicted of it will have their bus pass removed. Of course, that will have to be referred into the system for it to be initiated.
That brings me on to my next question, which is about the review mechanism involved. I presume that these matters will go back into Transport Scotland for review, but I also presume—and I appreciate that you might not have the detail of this yet—that any decision maker reviewing a matter would be outwith the original decision-making process, either in a different part of Transport Scotland, the Government or elsewhere. I presume that the intention is to separate that decision-making process and the individuals involved in the previous decision-making process.
I can absolutely tell you that the first part of what you have asked about—the review process—is still being developed. Carole Stewart works at that more operational level, so she might something further to add on whether the person involved will be independent of the first decision that was made.
The review process would require a further independent review of the decision that was taken and the length, or duration, of the suspension or withdrawal of the card.
So, an independent person would review the matter.
Yes, they will be separate from those involved in the first decision.
What exactly will the individual whose bus pass is potentially being removed receive? They will receive notification from Transport Scotland, but will they also receive details of the evidence that has been submitted by either the bus company or the police in support of the removal of the bus pass, so that, when they respond to any application, they will understand the details of what they are responding to?
Yes. A letter will be issued to the person subject to a suspension process, setting out a summary of the situation, the decision that has been taken and the process for requesting a review of that decision.
Good morning, again, minister—it is just about morning still.
Those were really interesting and important exchanges that you have had with Monica Lennon and the deputy convener, and I have written down the phrase “independent from ministerial decision making”. You were asked to make some quite specific judgment calls by Douglas Lumsden with regard to instances in which a bus pass might be removed, and you were then asked to confirm the removal of a bus pass in respect of some quite disturbing crimes.
I felt that, during those exchanges, the point that you were trying to make, without actually spelling it out, was that you could not confirm those things, because that would mean waiving your commitment to ensuring that the decision making of Transport Scotland was independent from ministerial interference. It would be helpful if you could say whether that was or was not the case.
You have put it far more eloquently than I did. Yes, those are not ministerial decisions; they will be operational decisions for Transport Scotland.
I think that that was helpful. The exchanges were important, but I just wanted to bottom that out and get it clarified.
On balance, I welcome the rather broad nature of the code of conduct. Again, it was important to hear about specific examples of unacceptable behaviour that could be put into it, but I was left thinking that, as soon as we start to list types of unacceptable behaviour against certain groups, one group is going to be missed out. If you are a disabled person, and that is not covered by the list, or if you have another protected characteristic that is not on the list, some issues might arise in that respect. Therefore, it is right to keep the code broad.
In order to operationalise the changes, will guidance be produced to support Transport Scotland in making decisions in cases that might involve gender-based violence, abuse, ableism or similar issues? Can you tell us a bit more about the guidance that would support such decision making?
What I was trying to say earlier is that there will be very wide engagement on the operational side of the issue. Those discussions with Transport Scotland will cover a very broad spectrum of things, so that we have the fullest understanding of how the changes can be implemented. The issue is complex, and a number of people have made the very simplified demand that we should just get the bus passes off them, but it is not that easy. There is a lot of complexity to consider.
Carole Stewart and her colleagues will take time to work through it all. Making the changes is taking so much time because we need to work our way through all those things and ensure that we understand people’s positions and put in place proper guidance.
To push a bit further on the idea of guidance, I will give an example of a theoretical instance—one that, unfortunately, will occur in practice—in which a racial slur is used and which, in context, is clearly intimidating and designed to hurt and offend an individual. It might be considered harassment and offensive under the broad code of conduct, but the offence will not be written down on a list anywhere—that is the point that Ms Lennon made. Will the guidance be expanded a little further—without a definitive list being produced—to give examples of incidents that could be subject to action?
Carole Stewart will be working on that. Where will you take the guidance from there, Carole?
We will produce guidance for the 2.4 million scheme users. We will also produce guidance for, and provide support to, bus operators and ensure that bus drivers are trained to understand the policy and processes. Within Transport Scotland, we will also develop a decision-making framework to help guide decisions.
It is perfectly possible to use some example scenarios in the guidance for passengers and operators in order to indicate how a particular incident would be dealt with under the procedures and what its outcome would be through the review process. It would be helpful to use examples.
Okay—that gives a degree of reassurance.
Earlier, Mr Ruskell raised conditions of carriage. In a previous session, I remember that I told you, minister, about having read First Bus’s conditions of carriage. I will not repeat the contents, but I wonder whether the argument is a bit of a red herring. In my experience as a constituency MSP dealing with antisocial behaviour on buses, I rarely have discussions about conditions of carriage.
First Bus has been excellent in relation to routes where there could be issues, and a bit of good‑quality driver training and driver continuity—so that the same drivers are on the same routes consistently, are experienced, and know what to expect and how to handle it—has made a real difference. First Bus has also delivered good driver training and built good partnerships with Police Scotland and with local organisations in an area where there could be pinch points and specific localised issues with antisocial behaviour. There are key risk times in the day and night when antisocial behaviour is most likely to flare up, and improvements could be made in key areas in order to deal with such behaviour at bus stops, but at no point do we say, “Let’s get the conditions of carriage out.”
The reason that I put that on the record is that this is fundamentally about sharing best practice—reflecting Mr Ruskell’s important point about how we deter antisocial behaviour, which is not age‑specific—and about how bus companies and local partners can do so to reduce and tackle antisocial behaviour in ways that go beyond simply withdrawing the bus pass. Withdrawing passes is important, but the issue is also the wider environment. Is there any on-going work on that?
Yes. We have a bus antisocial behaviour stakeholder group run by the Confederation of Passenger Transport. We have had discussions around strengthening operators’ conditions of carriage and on the potential for the code of conduct and the power contained in the SSI to be incorporated in those conditions of carriage.
Those in the bus industry are not just working with us on the SSI and the suspension procedure in isolation; they do a lot of work in communities. They go out to schools and provide information on using buses safely and responsibly. They try to build up relationships between bus drivers, bus operators and people on their regular routes.
We are also in discussion with operators on enhanced communication around safety and zero tolerance of antisocial behaviour on buses. The conditions of carriage and the suspension process are not the only policy or mechanism that we are working with; there is a package of measures to try and make things better.
That is helpful. I just wanted to get the point on the record. On the idea of looking through the conditions of carriage in minute detail, the minister said in the previous evidence session that that is not how we tackle antisocial behaviour and emphasised a wider approach. Mr Ruskell will probably agree here. I believe that the power to withdraw bus passes in a structured and considered fashion should be afforded to Transport Scotland.
Colleagues have spoken about concerns that the measures must be specific to conduct on a bus. I think that, because of the complexities at play here, that has to be the case, as a starting point. Without setting the hares running, minister, could you envisage a case in a few months’ time or a few years’ time where it is clear that there are hotspots at bus stations and bus stops where a group of people with national concessionary cards are congregating? They could be of any age—they could be older or younger; it is not always young people—and they may be causing a disturbance when seeking to board a bus or after disembarking from a bus. Could some discretionary powers be afforded in the future to consider withdrawing concessionary entitlement in a more considered fashion?
That would be for the Parliament to decide in the next session. There is a lot of on-going work around antisocial behaviour that should tackle those things. There is on-going work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Police Scotland the bus companies on hotspots. If there are hotspots, they will be known to the local communities. There is on-going work on that, and there is an independent working group. I think that five recommendations came out of that work on antisocial behaviour—not on buses, but on antisocial behaviour in general.
This is a problem that we need to tackle more widely, but the SSI is specifically about action that we can take on people who are using their bus pass and committing antisocial behaviour while they are using that pass.
Kevin, we will come to you next. I will then give Mark Ruskell one question, Monica Lennon one question and me one question—I am limiting myself to the same as you two.
Much of what I was going to ask, which was on evidential thresholds, has been covered by the deputy convener. That questioning has nailed that point, I think.
Minister, you are a sensible man—you are a man of common sense, I would say—but you are dealing with an order that is bus related only. I think that we get that. A huge amount of other issues have been raised today that are not dealt with by the order before us and that could never be captured by it, in my humble opinion. However, you can see the strength of feeling in the room. I am quite sure that you will undertake to relay that strength of feeling to justice colleagues in particular. It may well be that the Crown and the judiciary need to consider sentencing, if possible, to remove bus passes.
I have a simple question. Will you relay to justice colleagues some of the strength of feeling that has been expressed today? Will you talk to them and ask them to speak to the Crown and the judiciary to find out whether anything else would be required to remove bus passes from folks who are committing antisocial and criminal acts outwith buses?
12:00
I absolutely give that commitment, and I have already agreed to meet Ms Constance about the issues that we are discussing. I am in no doubt about the strength of feeling that is in the room regarding the antisocial behaviour that is being experienced across society. It is not my intention to diminish anything that anyone has said or for it to come across that I am doing that, because I get all the issues that have been raised. However, the order will not deal with those issues, because there are wider societal problems that we need to deal with.
I will take on board the specific point about whether sentencing should include the removal of bus passes, and I will raise it with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs—I have a meeting with her later on to discuss what we are discussing in this meeting.
In no way would I diminish any of the points that have been made today, and I take them all on board.
In those discussions, it might be found that the removal of bus passes in such cases would require further legislative change that is outwith your remit. However, thank you for that commitment.
Mark Ruskell, please make your question short.
The code of conduct that is in front of us was published in January 2026. I am interested in how it will develop over time, and I am also interested in how many cases Transport Scotland will deal with every year based on the code of conduct. There is a franchise of 2.3 million people who have concessionary cards. Would you expect the number of cases to be about a couple of hundred, a couple of thousand or more than 10,000?
We have heard today that the whole process of reviewing evidence, making a judgment and allowing appeals from cardholders could be quite time consuming. I am trying to understand what the numbers would likely be. It could be that a whole department would need to be set up to independently review the cases that come forward, particularly if the code of conduct includes—as in the current draft—reference to “indecent language” on buses, because that could involve huge numbers of people.
Are you effectively asking me whether we have done any modelling on how many bus passes will be removed as a result of the code of conduct?
Yes.
We have not done any modelling on the number of passes that would be removed. As I said, there is a lot of complexity involved in this issue. Officials will go through the operational process of working out what removing bus passes would mean.
We have had many discussions with Transport for London, which runs a similar suspension and withdrawal scheme for its Zip Oyster concessionary card, which applies to 11 to 15-year-olds in London. There are about three times more passengers who use our national concessionary travel scheme than use the London scheme, and there is one full-time member of staff in London.
Is that for the 11 to 15 scheme?
Yes. I am just giving those figures as a baseline to start with. However, we do not know how many cases will come through until we try withdrawing passes. Our national concessionary travel schemes are quite unique in their scale and scope, so we will need to see how withdrawing passes will work when we begin to operationalise it.
There you go, Mark—that was your one question. The next question is from Monica Lennon.
Given the serious nature of some of the questions about serious types of crime and antisocial behaviour that have been asked in this meeting, it is regrettable that there has been a lot of mansplaining at the committee today. Two former transport ministers have come to your rescue to some extent, minister.
I tried earlier to get clarity on the Government’s policy intention. I understand the scope of the statutory instrument and I understand what the Parliament will be asked to vote on. However, as someone who has sat in a room in this Parliament with you, minister, and with other stakeholders who want urgent action taken to reduce and tackle violence on our buses, I am asking about the Scottish Government’s position and your position as the minister. I am not asking what you will do about wider societal violence or gender-based violence; my question is about buses. You have now been asked about holding discussions with justice colleagues on what could be done through sentencing. My question is whether, before getting to this point today, the Scottish Government considered what other action could be taken to provide for a situation in which violent criminals who have committed crimes on buses in Scotland would face the automatic removal of their bus pass—that is, would lose the privilege of having one. Was that considered? If so, why was it dismissed as an action that could be taken during this parliamentary session?
I do not believe that it was considered as a stand-alone thing. I believe that we took the findings from the round tables and the discussions that we had with various stakeholders and decided to look overall at the removal of bus passes in the case of antisocial behaviour. No specific thinking was done about criminality and the automatic removal of a bus pass. That is my understanding, unless Carole Stewart can tell me something different.
I think that your official is nodding in agreement with you. That is a clear answer, so I thank you, minister.
I will reiterate a question that came up the last time that you brought the draft instrument to the committee, minister. It relates to children who use their bus pass to get to school and might, if the concessionary aspect was removed, have no ability to get to school. What thought have you given to that since our meeting some three weeks ago?
We discussed that, but I reiterate that children who use their bus pass to get to school have a right to get to school via the local authority. Those are two different issues. However, the operational aspect of the code of conduct will look at all the reasons for, and implications of, the removal of a bus pass. We would rather that it be used as a deterrent, so that it does not happen. However, if it does happen, the young person will have a right to get travel from their local authority if they live beyond 3 miles away from their school. The two schemes are not the same and should never be regarded as such.
That is all our questions on both instruments.
We now move to agenda item 4, which is a debate on motion S6M-20454, which calls on the committee to recommend that the draft National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2026 be approved. For 100 per cent clarity, I note that this is the order that relates to the money for concessionary travel—the names of the two instruments are very close.
I call the minister to speak to and move the motion.
I have nothing further to add, convener.
Motion moved,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]
I invite contributions, including just statements, from members.
Minister, as no one wants to speak, I now invite you to sum up and respond to the debate—although as there has not been a debate, you may just want to conclude.
I will conclude.
Motion agreed to.
I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve a draft report for publication.
Members indicated agreement.
Item 5 is a debate on motion S6M-20799, which calls the committee to recommend that the draft National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 be approved. The order relates to concessionary travel and the removal of passes.
Motion moved,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]
Does anyone want to say anything?
I will be brief. I fully support the order, but I must say that I have been disappointed by some of the minister’s answers. We all agree, I think, that if somebody does something criminal, losing their pass should be automatic. However, I have slight issues over the clarity of the situation when it comes to people getting that pass back.
Today, I raised the case of a 16-year-old who killed a bus driver in Elgin. When they are released, they will still be under 22 and entitled to free bus travel. The minister should have been able to say that that individual would not have the privilege of that entitlement returned. The order, which we are being asked to recommend approval of today, should allow that to happen. I feel for the driver’s colleagues, who will probably have to see that individual again and take them on their bus, and for the driver's widow. It should have been easy to say that Keith Rollinson’s killer would not get that free entitlement again, and it is disappointing that the minister has not been able to rule out their getting their pass back today.
I will support the order today, because I recognise the broad aims that the minister has set out. I would have liked to hear more clarity about how the order will work operationally and what criteria will be considered for reviews or appeals. We got there towards the end, but I am disappointed by the missed opportunity to take further action. It sounds as if the issue should have been discussed more closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who the minister is to meet.
We have heard about what could happen in the next parliamentary session, but the issues have been discussed in the Parliament over the past couple of years, with strong interest from different parties and from lots of stakeholders. I feel that lots of victims and families will feel disappointed today.
I would like to understand what opportunity you think has been missed in terms of what we are trying to achieve with the order. I have not, in any way, tried to minimise the points that you have made during the discussion. The order has the specific function of removing, for antisocial behaviour on buses, passes from people who are entitled to them. There is massive complexity even within that, which is why it is taking time. I accept that the issue has been discussed for a number of years. However, proper and thorough investigation is still required as to whether it is the right thing to do, and, if so, how to do it. That is why we are here now.
I am curious, and this is not a gotcha question: what is the missed opportunity here, and what would you rather see going forward?
I hope that I have been clear with the committee and the minister that I will support the order today, because it is the option that is in front of us and to delay action on it would not be the right thing to do. However, for the benefit of the record, I am saying that the Government has missed the opportunity to take more robust action to address the issues that Douglas Lumsden raised.
I will not go into individual cases, but I have put to the minister today that, where it is very clear that individuals have perpetrated extreme violence or sexual assault on a bus, they should not be allowed the privilege of a free bus pass. I think that it is within the gift of the Scottish Government to have such a view, to state such a position, to take legal advice and to work across Government to get the right people around the table. I also feel that the meeting with the justice secretary has come a bit late in the process.
I will vote for the motion today, but I would have preferred to see a much more robust package of measures from the Government to target these most serious crimes, so that, where they are committed, the victims and the survivors can see that Government is respectful of their feelings.
12:15
Again, as I said in my response to you, it is my expectation that that is what would happen. As Bob Doris pointed out, there is no ministerial direction here—it has to be an operational issue for Transport Scotland. As a minister, it is my expectation that such criminal acts would result in the loss of the bus pass. However, Douglas Lumsden has made the point that we would then be looking at retrospective decision making. I am not going to talk about the individual case, but he is talking about retrospective decision making, and that is not something that I can talk about right now.
I will have conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs with regard to all the things that we have talked about today. A huge amount of work is already going on in the Scottish Government that is well beyond the scope of the order, and nobody is going to defend the rights of women and children more than me or my colleagues in the Government—we have been very proactive in doing so. I am more than happy to continue working across Government, if that is what Monica Lennon wants to happen.
Minister, that was a statement; an intervention is usually a question, so I will ask Monica Lennon to conclude what she was saying, so that I can go to Mark Ruskell.
I think that I have been clear in making the point about my intention with the order. From what I have heard, I believe that the Government has failed to look at the issue in a wider sense. The discussions with the justice secretary could have happened earlier in the process. I will leave my remarks there, convener.
It is clear that when individuals carry out serious criminal behaviour and end up in court, it should be in the gift of the courts to restrict their access to a bus pass, or even to public transport full stop, should they consider that appropriate. That is the way to deal with criminals who are going through the criminal justice system.
With regard to the order, which is about concessionary bus passes, I cannot see how it will make any difference whatsoever to that criminal behaviour—not one jot. All that we are saying, in effect, is that somebody does not have a free bus pass any longer, but they are still at liberty to get on board whatever bus they want. They are still at liberty to be in a bus station or throw bricks at a bus from the side of the road, as we have seen in Clackmannanshire and in Edinburgh.
The order will not change anything, but it will set up a very costly bureaucratic system—
Will the member take an intervention?
In a second. The order also poses the risk that we conflate bad and discourteous behaviour on buses with serious criminal behaviour. Even though we have a revised code of conduct in front of us that focuses more on criminality and harassment, there is still a danger that judgment calls will be made and that bad behaviour on buses will be conflated with criminal behaviour. At the end of the day, the order will not make any difference at all.
I would like the Government to put in place the approach that has been taken on the trains with the ScotRail travel safe teams. I know that the Government has work very closely with the rail unions on that, and I think that a better approach can be taken on buses, learning from that experience on the trains, but I just do not see the order making any difference at all.
I will not stand in the way of the order—I will abstain—but I tell you now that I do not think that it will make any difference at all, and that there will still be risks and dangers. The real issue here—restricting people who have shown clear criminal behaviour—will still exist and will not be addressed by whether somebody is going to pay a quid to get on a bus or get on the bus for free.
Minister, did you want to come in?
I was merely going to ask whether the member accepts that this is an opportunity to put a deterrent in place for antisocial behaviour. However, he has made his position clear, so that is probably a moot point.
I respect where the minister is coming from, and I suspect that we are not that far away from each other on this, but I just cannot see the deterrent. Those people will swap cards with their friends, and they will try to get on the bus whether they have a card or not.
People who are involved in serious antisocial behaviour will do what they do. They will continue to throw stones through the windscreens of buses and they will continue to cause havoc at bus stations until we have an approach that deals with the root causes of antisocial behaviour, brings those who have been involved in criminal activities to justice, and deals with some of the underlying causes. I am sorry, but I do not see the order as part of the mix. I will not stand in its way, but I will not vote for it.
I am just looking around the room—I see no other member wanting to comment. I will comment and then go to the minister. I say at the start that I will not take any interventions.
I have been a convener in the Parliament for nine years and I have sat through the consideration of numerous SSIs during that time. I have been supportive of a lot of them, and I have not been supportive of some of them. In those nine years, there is only one SSI that has come back after it was rejected, with the motion not moved the first time because it was quite clear that the policy behind it was immature and not properly thought out. It has happened only one time—with this order.
We waited and were told that a draft code of conduct would come to the committee. The draft code of conduct was submitted with a letter from the minister. I have to say that the draft code of conduct, as produced to this committee, is poor in content and unhelpful in a lot of respects, because it raises more questions than it answers. I was extremely grateful for the input of the deputy convener and Kevin Stewart in explaining to the committee some of the things that the minister was unable to explain.
I want the order to be approved, and I will vote for the motion on the basis that I agree with the principle of the order. Do I think that it is ready to be implemented? No, I do not. If the order is approved, it must be implemented by 24 March. That allows the Government 28 working days to come up with a code of conduct that works well and is able to support the order. Do I believe that that can happen? No, I do not.
I have to say—and it is really sad that I have to say this—that in my time in the Parliament, the consideration of this order has proved to be the most difficult thing to convene, and it has perhaps shown the Parliament at its worst when it comes to dealing with SSIs. Those are strong words, and I do not say them lightly.
Minister, I will come to you now, if you would like to comment.
I hear the convener’s points. I will go back to Mark Ruskell’s comment that he will not support the order but will abstain, and that is absolutely his choice. People will swap their cards, but if they do that, it is fraud and therefore a criminal act. The purpose of the removal of a bus pass is to crack down on antisocial behaviour. It is, I hope, a deterrent more than anything else.
With regard to being able to lay an SSI as a completed piece of work, the convener is well aware that, quite often, we will lay an SSI and then develop the policy and its workings as we go forward. This order will be ready to be implemented by the autumn of this year. There has been a demand for us to lay the order in order to put out the message that antisocial behaviour on buses will be tackled. The order is the first stage of the process. A tremendous amount of work has already gone into it and a tremendous amount of work will continue to go into it in order to make it operational by the autumn of this year.
Thank you. The question is, that motion S6M-20799 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Abstentions
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Motion agreed to,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.
I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve a draft report for publication. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Gosh, I thought that you were all going to pause then. I thank the minister and his officials, and I suspend the meeting until 12.30 to allow a changeover of witnesses.
12:24
Meeting suspended.
12:30
On resuming—
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [Draft]
Welcome back. Item 6 on the agenda is consideration of a further draft Scottish statutory instrument, on which the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment.
I welcome Gillian Martin, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, and her supporting officials Joel Hankinson, who is the head of Energy Act implementation in the offshore wind directorate, and David Moffat, who is a solicitor for the Scottish Government.
The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that it cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves it. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider a motion recommending that the instrument be approved.
I remind everyone that officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows. Would you like to make a brief opening statement, cabinet secretary?
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the instrument. I will try to be as brief as possible. Under the current habitats regulations, projects that affect protected sites must secure compensatory measures that are targeted specifically at the impacted habitat or species. In practice, only a limited range of measures can be evidenced to that standard, which creates a significant constraint for offshore wind development and puts climate and energy security ambitions at risk.
As a result of the passing of the Energy Act 2023, which was introduced by the former Conservative Government and delivered by the current Labour Government at UK level, we can now lay this Scottish statutory instrument, which introduces a more flexible approach but with strong safeguards. The core habitats regulations assessments remain, but new environmental safeguards will be brought into place and projects with potential adverse effects must still secure robust compensatory measures.
The SSI enables compensatory measures that support the wider UK marine protected area network, not only the impacted feature. Additional safeguards include the establishment of a compensation hierarchy to prioritise like-for-like measures but also enable wider alternatives when they are appropriate and offer enhanced ecological benefits.
We will publish guidance on how to apply the legislation and hierarchy and will review both regularly to ensure that the framework remains robust, transparent and responsive to new evidence. That guidance is being developed collaboratively with the UK Government and key stakeholders to ensure that it is grounded in scientific and industry expertise.
The SSI applies to Scotland’s inshore region, with a corresponding instrument to be introduced by the UK Government for offshore waters. The two instruments have been designed to align closely, and the guidance will apply across both inshore and offshore areas to support a consistent, joined-up approach.
The deputy convener has the first question.
Good afternoon, cabinet secretary. The instrument is an important step, given the challenges that the previous regulations have posed for the development of projects. I suppose that one of the key issues will be the governance process for the decision making on where mitigations for a particular project can be put in place and how that process will be managed and prioritised. How will that governance process operate in order to decide where an alternative form of mitigation could take place? How will that work on a four-nations basis, given that it is possible that mitigations could take place across the whole of the UK?
In practice, the governance associated with the process is still the normal consent process, which is about the habitats regulations and the compensatory part of any kind of application for consent. As at the moment, developers will have to produce plans on what they intend to compensate on and the data associated with that, but the difference is that they will be able to include wider measures.
The hierarchy is very important in that process: at the top, developers must consider like-for-like measures wherever possible and applicable, but those measures might be augmented by other measures in tiers 2 and 3 of the hierarchy. The marine directorate consents unit will analyse all the data and plans that are put forward. Developers will be able to get advice on that from the marine directorate and also from NatureScot.
Developers can put forward their own plans, and their application will be judged on those plans, but they can also apply to the Scottish marine recovery fund. There is a strategic recovery fund for the whole of Scotland that will enable large-scale and strategic projects to take place. There will be a range of particular workstreams that might be able to be applied to and funded as part of that.
The decisions, which are made on the habitats regulations and will have due regard to the hierarchy, will still be made by the marine directorate licensing operations team—MDLOT—but will come to ministers, along with all the advice, as is usual.
The hierarchy is helpful in trying to understand part of the process. Outwith the direct project, who will decide what the mitigations to offset the habitats impact of the project should be? Will the developer put forward the proposal on, for example, plans to do stoat or rat eradication on a particular island? Or will the developer accept that it cannot mitigate it all within its particular site and therefore seek advice from a third party, through the Scottish Government, to direct what the mitigation should be? I am trying to understand what that process looks like.
You are right that the developers will put forward their own plans. However, their own plans might not be sufficient, or they might discover, as they are working to put forward their plans, that there are not enough compensatory, like-for-like measures—those at the top of the hierarchy—in order for them to deliver adequate compensation. I will bring in Joel Hankinson on this point; he might have more detail on it, as he has been working heavily on the governance and policy around this. Developers will be able to engage with the marine directorate and also with NatureScot, both of which will have an impact on what the marine recovery fund will deliver, so they will be able to suggest mitigations. Joel will have more detail.
There will still be two alternative ways in which strategic compensation or compensatory measures could be brought forward under the new regime. The ability for offshore wind developers to individually propose compensation to offset their adverse impacts will remain. They can bring forward either wider measures or like-for-like measures, and they will go through the ordinary consenting process as part of that, engaging with—as Ms Martin said—MDLOT and statutory nature conservation bodies to understand that.
The marine recovery fund is also being explored as a mechanism for delivering strategic compensation. That would be a voluntary mechanism established by Government that will require its own governance process to look at the impacts of strategic compensation and how it can be delivered effectively. That will need a different type of advisory group or monitoring framework or approach.
On the question about wider governance, when we went out to consultation, we proposed two things. The first was a mandatory review period on a five-year cycle across the UK as a whole, including working with the UK Government, in order to understand the impacts of the legislation and where we might need to make changes. We will be working very closely with the UK Government as part of that process.
We also proposed the establishment of a technical advisory group to look at how we approve strategic compensation to go into a marine recovery fund, for example, and how we understand what further research needs to be undertaken. That work is still being developed at this stage, so we can return with further information in due course. It is very much a case of live policy development at the moment.
I add that there will also be analysis of the impact of the compensatory measures. The committee will be very familiar with the Scottish marine energy research programme, or ScotMER. The data associated with applications, and the data that goes into ScotMER about the marine environment, biodiversity and the impact on species, will also feed in to the analysis of the impact of all the compensatory measures that have been made, so that that forms part of the wider analysis. We will also share learning across the borders of the four nations.
There are only so many mitigation measures that can be put in place, so there will be only so much mitigation that can be done. Given the Scottish Government’s ambition to reach 40GW of offshore wind by 2040, where we are in the delivery pipeline in Scottish waters, as well as there obviously being a pipeline in England and Wales, what will be the process to ensure that it is not simply a case of first come, first served? If you drop all the scope mitigations that could be put in place outwith your own project, that could result in projects further down the line finding that there is not much left for them to do. It will not be quite like that—I am putting it in a fairly crude way—but I am trying to think about how we can ensure that we are giving as much scope as possible to maximise the process in a way that keeps in mind that it will be way into the 2030s before some projects are delivered and that there is a need to ensure that there are still some mitigation measures that they can help to support, when it comes to the point at which they need to do that.
Biodiversity loss is happening across many parts of the food chain, particularly those associated with seabirds. As data improves and science develops, I imagine that we might be able to take more suites of measures to protect seabirds from the various stresses that they face. That sharing of knowledge will be very important. Also, as I said, we will look every five years at whether the approach is workable, which is really important.
You make an important point. Obviously, there is some work that can be done now on a like-for-like basis. Will those measures be sufficient to stop the decline in the seabird population? Possibly not, but other measures may come through that might have an impact on the seabird population. This is way into the future, but we could even be looking at some strategic stuff around the impacts of avian flu, for example. Predator eradication and invasive species work is very time-consuming and costly and will take decades to keep on top of. Managing and eradicating invasive species will not be fixed in the next five years—it will require constant maintenance. That is like-for-like work.
Moreover, mitigation will not have to happen only in the geographical area where the development is. It could happen across Scotland, in any area in which a particular type of species is nesting, breeding or feeding. There will be quite a lot of scope.
The other thing is that it is about the entire UK marine protected area network. We are further ahead in our marine protected areas in Scotland, but species do not care about borders. Where they are and where they move to could be any part of the UK waters. That is why the strategic approach might yield more ambition in relation to taking away the stressors to marine life.
I am sure that I do not need to remind everyone about the time. The clock is not stopping for me—it never has done—and time is marching on. The next question comes from Mark Ruskell.
I think that the deputy convener has covered some of the areas that I wanted to go into, and I listened to the responses.
I have only one question. I noticed that the responses to the consultation were quite divided—environmental non-governmental organisations were not really supportive of the measure and there were some concerns from the fishing sector as well, but the renewable energy sector was very supportive. Given what you have described in relation to the hierarchy and the need to look at the issue more strategically, how do you see those interests coming together? It is clear that the industry will probably run out of options for setting traps on islands to remove invasive species.
There will be a need for serious investment in ecological restoration across the seas, which will require environmental non‑governmental organisations and others coming to the table, working with the industry and coming up with some really big ideas that go way beyond what is being discussed at the moment. How do you ensure that that input is there and that you are not just having a circular conversation with the industry?
12:45
What you have highlighted is extremely important. Some of the ENGOs might be reticent about the regulations, but they have to be in the room, along with all the stakeholders that are associated with the marine environment. One major advantage of that is that the ENGOs and the associated scientific community will be able to work with us on the compensatory measures.
At the moment, the hierarchy is a proposal. We have not bottomed out all the actions that might be in the hierarchy, but the actions that are associated with all tiers of the hierarchy will be done in consultation with all stakeholders. Where there is an ability in the future to redevelop the hierarchy—the instrument will be reviewed every five years—we will be able to constantly analyse how the compensatory measures are working and whether we can do anything more. We might be able to add additional actions to certain tiers of the hierarchy. Given that there will be a marine recovery fund, the chances are that there will be an awful lot more funding associated with doing some of the bigger interventions. Every stakeholder that is associated with the marine environment needs to be around the table, because we cannot go forward without all that expertise.
To expand on that, we are in the process of drafting the guidance that will underpin the instrument and we have committed to engaging with ENGOs and other stakeholders as part of that, because we want them to meaningfully contribute to how the hierarchy works in practice and how it can be a meaningful safeguard. At the same time, we are progressing a series of research projects to look at what compensatory measures could be taken forward as part of the work. Again, we engage with ENGOs and other interested stakeholders as part of that.
I do not expect the research that we are doing to be the end of the story—we will have to do more. As part of that, we will continue to engage with those stakeholders. We are fully cognisant that they know things about our marine environment that we do not necessarily know and that there are positive things that we can do. We can learn a lot from them, and we want them to be part of the journey.
Monica, you have a chance to ask another question, later. Are you happy to take that opportunity, or do you want to come in now?
I will wait.
Perfect. Douglas, you have a question.
It is only brief. The Scottish Government policy note says:
“The policy is anticipated to have a negative impact on fisheries.”
When I talk to people in the fishing industry, they are concerned that mitigation, perhaps for a wind farm down in the south of England, might end up restricting fishing off the north‑east coast. What discussions have you had with the fishing industry about that? How can you give it some reassurance that the sector will not be adversely impacted by what happens elsewhere?
All the conditions that are associated with compensation from the developer will go in to MDLOT at the Scottish Government. To be honest, I cannot see a situation in which the scenario that you have described would happen, because we have developments of our own for which we need to find compensatory measures.
Regarding our general engagement with the fishing sector, it will have, and already has had, opportunities through that engagement to help to shape the compensation measures that have been structured. We have already been working with it. There will be engagement on the proposed measures, opportunities to provide that detailed knowledge about fishing activity and local marine conditions, and we would work with it on any intelligence and data that it might want to provide on fish species. We need to ensure that all marine industries are able to co-exist, so marine spatial planning will be very important, and the committee knows very well the work that has been done in that area.
The marine stakeholders in general have been involved in the development of the instrument and all the underpinning policy, which was done on a four-nations basis as a result of the Energy Act 2023. They have been able to input into that.
Another aspect of the matter is that, when it comes to any consultation on particular developments, representatives of the fishing industry can also put their submissions in to MDLOT, on a case-by-case basis.
What, then, is the negative impact that you anticipate that your policy will have on fisheries?
The policy note is highlighting that there is that potential. We will work to avoid that as much as possible so that all marine industries can co-exist. All the impacts on any part of the marine sector are taken into account by MDLOT as an application goes through the consenting process.
I think that that has also answered my question. I am not sure whether your question on coastal communities has been answered, Monica, or whether you want to come in.
That has been covered. I am mindful of the time, so could I get just a word or two about the role of NatureScot? We heard from it earlier. Given the new governance structures around this and the four-nations approach, do you see any particular challenges for NatureScot in relation to this work?
I was not able to see NatureScot’s part of the meeting but I hope that it was able to give you comfort that it is preparing for this work and that it sees it as positive. NatureScot is looking at structuring its operations to ensure that it has in-house expertise, so that it can work with developers and signpost them to the best compensation measures that might be available to them. It has been preparing for this. As I said, the Energy Act 2023 was introduced in the previous UK Parliament, so all the agencies across the UK have been preparing for a few years for the eventuality that we will have this flexibility and new hierarchy.
To expand on that, statutory nature conservation bodies across the UK, including NatureScot, have been closely involved in the development of the policy and the approach that we are taking. We have had regular discussions with NatureScot about what we are trying to achieve and what its potential role could be in that. As I mentioned previously, we are still working through what that governance structure—the technical advisory group that underpins the policy—could look like in practice, but we very much see a role for SNCBs as part of that process.
That is helpful.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to review the evidence that we heard from NatureScot this morning and be convinced that it is ready for the policy. I will leave it there. Do you have a follow-up question, Mark?
I am fine.
No member has indicated that they have any other questions, so we move to item 7, which is a debate on motion S6M-20459.
Motion moved,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Gillian Martin].
Does anyone want to say anything?
I will be very brief because I know that time is against us. I find it very difficult to support something that says in black and white that there will be a negative impact on fisheries.
I also have concerns about the governance arrangements that the deputy convener asked about. I do not think that they are all there yet—that is perhaps not to be expected—but I would like to know more about them.
I have a concern that all the available compensations in Scotland could be used up for projects that are actually in different parts of the UK. You might think that that is okay, but I have concerns that especially the fishing fleet will be impacted by things that are taking place miles away. It seems that the only compensation that it will be entitled to are measures such as marine litter removal. If there is going to be an impact on the Scottish fishing fleet, I think that proper monetary compensation should be put in place for those people whose livelihoods will be affected. I hope that that will come in in future SSIs or legislation. As it is, I cannot support the instrument.
Can you sum up and respond to the debate, cabinet secretary?
I will just respond to that point. The governance framework will be set out after the SSI is approved. The governance framework is not in the instrument. That work is on-going. The compensatory framework and the hierarchy will be developed with stakeholders.
Okay, thank you. [Interruption.] Sorry?
I was going to ask for an intervention.
You were too slow—the cabinet secretary came to the end of what she was saying.
The question is, that motion S6M-20459, in the cabinet secretary’s name, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Motion agreed to,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.
The committee was a bit slow last time, so let us see if we can be quicker. Is the committee happy to delegate authority to me as convener to approve a draft of our report on the SSI for publication?
Members indicated agreement.
You are. Good. Thank you so much. Thank you for attending, cabinet secretary and officials.
12:56
Meeting continued in private until 13:45.