Official Report 533KB pdf
National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 [Draft]
09:03
The next item is consideration of a draft Scottish statutory instrument. The order would give Scottish ministers the power to draw up standards of conduct for people benefiting from concessionary travel that could lead to the benefit being withdrawn from individuals. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the order and made no comment on it in its report.
I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, and his supporting officials: Carole Stewart, bus strategy and funding unit, and Eilidh McCabe, concessionary travel policy manager, Transport Scotland; and Kelly Minio-Paluello, solicitor, Scottish Government.
As the instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, it cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves it. Following the evidence-taking session, the committee will be invited to consider a motion to recommend that the instrument be approved. I remind everyone that the Scottish Government officials can speak under this item, but not in the debate that follows.
The committee has received some written evidence from stakeholders on the subject, including a late submission that we received this morning from Young Scot. I thank it for that.
I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.
Thank you very much, convener. I also thank the committee very much for inviting me to discuss the draft order.
As the committee is aware, free bus travel has been a truly transformative policy, helping to reduce child poverty, grow the economy and tackle the climate emergency. In December of last year alone, more than 15 million journeys were undertaken by those eligible for free bus travel, and the vast majority of those journeys were undertaken by individuals who exercised their entitlement to free bus travel responsibly.
Unfortunately, a small minority do not travel responsibly, and their behaviour, whether it be abuse towards drivers, intimidation of passengers or vandalism, is unacceptable, making others feel unsafe and eroding confidence in public transport. This new piece of legislation will allow concessionary travel to be suspended for or withdrawn from anyone who breaches the forthcoming code of conduct. The code will set out appropriate behaviour for those who travel on the bus network using their entitlement to free bus travel, and it, and the accompanying procedures, will apply to all users of the national concessionary travel schemes, regardless of age.
We are taking a phased approach to implementation. This will not be an overnight change, but it is an important step forward. The legislation sets out the framework and, once put in place, it will send a clear message that antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated.
For this change to our free bus travel schemes to be successful, on-going and open engagement with stakeholders in the policy development process is essential. I am grateful to the many organisations that have been working, and which continue to work, with officials to ensure that the implementation of the new legislation will result in an effective and equitable process. Detailed reporting and suspension procedures, as well as the code itself, will be shared with the committee in due course.
The order is one of a range of measures that we are introducing to set out our expectations with regard to safe and responsible behaviour on Scotland’s public transport network. We are developing a multifaceted approach to encourage positive behaviour on the bus network, including by developing educational materials, outlining responsible behaviour on buses and exploring additional visible safety measures, such as the potential for travel safety officers. They will provide a multipronged approach to ensure the safety of drivers and passengers on buses.
The initiatives complement the Scottish Government’s wider approach to tackling antisocial behaviour, which includes the prevention and early intervention approaches taken in the violence prevention framework and the cashback for communities programme, as well as the package of measures that we are putting in place to ensure responsible behaviour on Scotland’s rail network. Our aim in introducing the legislation is to protect a benefit that helps tackle poverty. By making buses safer and more welcoming, we will ensure that those who rely on free travel can use them with confidence.
I commend the order to the committee, and I am happy to take questions on it.
Thank you very much, minister, and I must ask Sue Webber to accept my apologies for not saying at the beginning that she was present. She will get a chance to ask a question at the end.
I am pretty sure—in fact, I am 100 per cent sure—that this legislation will never apply to me, but I should for the record point out that I probably have the ability to get concessionary travel, given that I am over 60. However, I do not think that I am going to fall foul of this legislation—at least, I hope that I never will.
The first question will come from me—and no smirking, minister, because I really do not think that you will see me affected by what is in the code. Can you outline the evidence that you have heard on the issues that have emerged and the extent of the antisocial behaviour? It would be very helpful to hear that, given that we are talking about both ends of the age groups, as it were. I am pretty sure that it is not just young people whose behaviour sometimes slips.
The convener is absolutely correct—this is not about targeting young people. We have been very clear about that from day 1. It is about antisocial behaviour, which arises in all age groups, not just those who come within our concessionary travel schemes.
The committee will be aware of the issues that were raised in the responses to our survey. Quite often, it is young people who feel intimidated during bus travel, particularly by older males, and I would like us to be able to talk about this in terms of withdrawing the scheme from anyone who is entitled to the card but who gets involved in this type of antisocial behaviour, whoever they might be, and to get away from talking about young people.
I also point out that boisterous behaviour is not antisocial behaviour—teenagers will be teenagers. In the correspondence that the committee will have received, there is discussion at various points about boisterous youngsters causing people to move seats, but that is just kids being kids. There are definite cases of antisocial behaviour, which has been widely talked about across the chamber and among the groups that have made representations. We felt that it was appropriate to ensure that we had the opportunity to remove concessionary travel in those cases, should there be a requirement to do so.
I am pretty sure that there has always been boisterous behaviour on buses; certainly, that was the case when I was younger. Before I move to the next question, can the minister clarify whether he has evidence of older people misbehaving on buses, which would mean that their concessionary travel pass could be removed?
I cannot give a specific answer, but we have received anecdotal responses from young people. When the proposal was announced, it caused some consternation among young people in particular, because they felt as though they were being targeted. They have made the point that some older people, particularly older males, can create fear and alarm for younger people as well as older people. We are looking at the draft instrument as an ability to remove an entitlement. We are not just targeting younger people or older people. We do not have regular reporting figures from the operators because, until now, they have tended to deal with any issues themselves. When we have the level of antisocial behaviour that would merit taking away a bus pass, we have evidence that that has been on-going.
Purely for the record, I think that anyone who makes use of concessionary travel and misbehaves to the extent that their bus pass should be removed, whether they are a young person or an old person, should have it removed. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable.
Mark Ruskell has some questions about the mechanics.
I recognise that antisocial behaviour is a problem on our buses and I think that the minister is right to highlight it. Why has no code of conduct been presented with the order? The minister has spoken about making a distinction between antisocial behaviour and boisterous behaviour. Where are those definitions in the order, and where is the code of conduct?
The code of conduct is still in development. I have to take some responsibility for that. Officials have done a lot of work on it, but I chose not to present it to the committee at this stage, because I want to be sure that everything is tied into it. We will present the code of conduct to the committee as soon as possible. The fact that we received Young Scot’s submission only this morning indicates that there are still things that we want to do.
Young Scot is part of the Confederation of Passenger Transport’s antisocial behaviour stakeholder group; however, its submission notes that it does not feel that the proposal to remove bus passes has been presented to it directly. I want to be sure that, when we are delivering the code of conduct, we have crossed as many of the t’s and dotted as many of the i’s as we possibly can to ensure that it is fair and robust. When we reach the point that officials present the code to me as the final article, I want to be comfortable that I can come back to the committee and say, “This is the code of conduct. We think that it will be the proper vehicle to allow us to be able to carry out the process.”
You can perhaps see the difficulty that the committee is in. We are being asked to approve an order—a power, effectively—to remove a person’s bus pass without knowing what circumstances it could be applied under. I will give you an example, which was raised by a constituent of mine as well as the minister’s. There are some examples of people who have a disability who have become very frustrated when they cannot get their wheelchair on to a bus. In some instances, that has led to an altercation or an argument between them and the bus driver. How would the code of conduct deal with someone who is having an argument with a bus driver? Would that be included as antisocial behaviour?
Those are precisely the kind of things that I want to be sure that we have got around. Carole Stewart nodded when you set out that example, so she clearly understands it; it might already be in the code.
That is in the code. That person’s bus pass would be removed if they were having an argument with a bus driver.
Is that in the code at this point, Carole?
In practice, we anticipate that the bus operating company, Police Scotland or someone else will file a report on the circumstances of a particular incident, which will come to Transport Scotland for consideration. The process would not involve a person’s pass or eligibility for a pass being taken away on the spot; there would be a report and follow-up mechanism within Transport Scotland.
That is as close as we have come to an acknowledgement that, if a disabled person had an argument with a bus driver because they were frustrated that they could not get their wheelchair on a bus, it would probably result in proceedings that would end up with Transport Scotland.
Transport Scotland would have to take a view on the situation. It is not an automatic—
There would be a whole process of Transport Scotland adjudicating on it and the person needing to present evidence on it.
Yes. A driver making a complaint would not necessarily guarantee that a pass would be taken away. Transport Scotland would have to take a view on that.
Again, I am trying to fish for real-life examples. It seems that you and your officials have done the work on this, but you are not presenting it to the committee. What about somebody who is listening to music on headphones very loudly? They might be listening to Kate Bush, for example. Could that be raised as a complaint, and would it go to Transport Scotland for the adjudication process?
I apologise to the committee that I did not allow officials to give you a copy of the draft code at this stage. I also apologise to the officials, because they have done a hell of a lot of the work on this, but I was not comfortable with it being shared at this stage in its draft form, because I wanted to make sure that we had done everything. I apologise to the committee that I have not done that. We could sit here for as long as you need to look at specific examples—Carole Stewart will be able to answer questions on those.
Could the example that I gave trigger a Transport Scotland adjudication process on the withdrawal of somebody’s bus pass?
Mark, I will come in very briefly.
Minister, I fear that a lot of the questions this morning will be about understanding the draft code, which the committee has taken evidence on, and which would really help the committee in considering the instrument. It is up to the committee to say whether it supports the instrument—personally, I support its principles, but I am concerned about its implementation. However, I will sow this seed now: you have an option to withdraw the instrument and produce the draft code. The matter would then come back to the committee, and we would have a chance to look at the instrument again along with the draft code. I am not saying that that is what the committee wants, but you have said that there is something there. I fear that there will be lots of questions on the code, so I ask you to consider that. I would like you to respond to Mark Ruskell’s question, and that is just an option that I want to put on the table at this stage.
Let us go back to Kate Bush.
The code of conduct covers certain types of behaviour, for example, a passenger acting in a way that hurts or threatens others on the bus, such as by hurting someone physically; using abusive, threatening or indecent language; or engaging in any kind of harassment. It also covers behaviours that damage or disrupt the bus, including by breaking seats, breaking windows, safety equipment or other parts of the bus, or doing things that make it hard for the bus to run safely.
All those things are potentially criminal activities, particularly breaking a bus or abusing somebody. Presumably, they are also reflected in the conditions of carriage that all bus companies have, which relate to every passenger, regardless of whether they pay to get on and whether they have a pass, and whatever their age group. Why are the conditions of carriage not being enforced at the moment?
Operators’ conditions of carriage give them the right to remove passengers who act in a way that hurts or threatens others or causes damage or disruption to the bus. The code of conduct is related specifically to the national concessionary travel schemes and the entitlement to travel for free.
Will there be a big difference between—
We were asked as a Government—
Hang on, minister. Is there a big difference between the conditions of carriage and the code of conduct? Conditions of carriage are an existing agreement for passengers. There are questions about how those could be enforced better and about whether bus drivers are able to enforce them on their own, but those are existing conditions on every single passenger, regardless of whether they pay to get on or not, so what is the difference between the two?
I asked the very same question during meetings in the early stages about whether the removal of a bus pass was necessary. The operators, passenger organisations, this committee and members in the chamber asked us to look at the removal of a bus pass as a result of people’s antisocial behaviour. Yes, the operators have the ability to use their conditions of carriage. I made that point on a number of occasions when we were having early discussions, but we were asked to introduce the ability to remove a bus pass because people thought that that would solve the problem with antisocial behaviour, and that is what we have now done.
I have a final question, convener. I struggle to see how that will tackle the worst antisocial behaviour that we are seeing. There is some horrendous antisocial behaviour, with people throwing bricks through bus windows and ripping up seats. There is a huge amount of bad behaviour at some bus stations. I struggle to see how this measure tackles the root cause of that behaviour. Is it not the case that if somebody has their bus pass removed, they can just walk on a bus, as many people do in England, where there is no young persons scheme, and pay a fare to get on, or borrow someone else’s card?
It might be headline grabbing, but I struggle to see how the measure actually deals with the issue of people, whatever age group they are in, who are determined to get on the bus and abuse other people, which is completely unacceptable and breaches the conditions of carriage.
I am disappointed that you are talking about the measure being headline grabbing. Its purpose was certainly not to be headline grabbing. Its purpose was to respond to the calls from large numbers of people for the bus operators to have the ability to remove a bus pass, or at least to give the information to Transport Scotland to enable it to remove a bus pass.
Will it solve the problem on its own? Absolutely not. It is a societal problem, and we have had discussions on it in the committee and in the chamber before. The order will not be a panacea or a silver bullet; a range of other work is on-going. As I said in my opening statement, we have the violence prevention framework and the cashback for communities programme, and work is on-going to try to ensure people’s safety when they are travelling on public transport of any kind in a number of areas. Ms Brown has taken forward work on youth behaviour and antisocial behaviour.
There is a range of work, but this measure is one tool in the box that is available. If people are entitled to free carriage, that can be withdrawn from them if they continue to cause incidents of extreme antisocial behaviour or persistent antisocial behaviour. It is not the silver bullet—it was never intended to be—but it is certainly something to consider.
What about travel wardens? The West Midlands has travel wardens, who stop people who are carrying out antisocial behaviour from even getting on the bus, regardless of whether they have a pass.
That is one of the things that we are looking at. It already happens on Lothian Buses and Stagecoach buses. They are not called travel safety officers—they are called something else. There are agreements with—[Interruption.] I am sure that Ms Webber is going to come in on that in a second, because I can hear her talking away.
Sorry—whoa, whoa! While I am convening the committee, I ask members to quietly allow other members to get their questions answered, without adding bits in. Ms Webber will get her chance at the end, as I have indicated. [Interruption.] Ms Webber, you will get a chance at the end. As a respect to the committee members who do this week in, week out, let them get their questions in without making comments from the sidelines, so that I can hear them.
To finish the point that I was making, the measures include the potential to have travel safety officers. We are continually looking at how we make sure that public transport is safe.
Michael Matheson wants to ask a supplementary on that. I know that Kevin Stewart and Bob Doris also want to come in, so there is a heap of questions. By the look on her face, I suspect that Sarah Boyack wants in as well.
Good morning. Like others, I recognise the need for us to deal with issues of antisocial behaviour on public transport.
As I have not had sight of the code of conduct, can I clarify: is the intention for the code to deal only with the issue of antisocial behaviour that takes place on buses or can the sanctions also be used for young people who make use of the bus, carry out antisocial behaviour, and then get back on the bus?
Very often l hear—as I am sure that others also do—that there have been problems with antisocial behaviour in certain town centres, because young people have got a bus in, caused antisocial behaviour, and then gone back home again on the bus.
To be clear: does the sanction apply only to antisocial behaviour that takes place on or in the vicinity of the bus?
Again, I apologise to members for not giving the committee a copy of the draft code of conduct.
I will ask Carole Stewart to pick up that point.
The power and the code of conduct have to apply in relation to the concessionary travel entitlement. If antisocial behaviour takes place in exercising the use of that entitlement it is within scope for the code of conduct and the procedure. However, I will ask Kelly Minio-Paluello to verify that for me.
The power in the legislation would apply if a person breaches the standards of conduct “while using the Scheme”.
Let me unpack my question. If a person gets on the bus, takes the bus to a location and commits an act of antisocial behaviour in that location, and then gets back on a bus at some later stage, to go back home or wherever else, would that be classified as a breach of the code?
In legislation, under the current code, what would that be?
The provision states “while using the Scheme”, so depending on the circumstances, it would need to be determined whether the conduct took place while the person was using the concessionary travel scheme.
Hold on. Does that mean that if someone uses concessionary bus travel, commits some form of antisocial behaviour nowhere near a bus and not associated with public transport, then the sanction of removing their concessionary travel could be deployed? Is that what the code of conduct would allow to happen?
I think that Carole Stewart is better placed than I am to answer that.
As we currently sit here, I do not know the answer. We will go away and look at that.
The reason I am uncomfortable with presenting the code at this stage is exactly because I do not know whether we have the detail on those kinds of questions. However, I am happy to take away as many questions as the committee wants to ask us; that way, when we present the code to the committee, those answers will be there.
Okay. We do not currently know whether it could be applied in those instances.
My second point is in relation to process. Given that the decision maker will be someone within Transport Scotland, what are the intended governance arrangements around that individual in relation to their making of those decisions, and what threshold of evidence will be required in order to justify a decision?
09:30
Again, we are still working that bit out. We cannot bring in the lifting of the entitlement at this stage because there is still a lot of work to do on the details. The principle of card removal is one thing that we have tried to get done in order to give the clear signal that, although the use of a card is an entitlement and a right, it is one that can be removed if people engage in antisocial behaviour.
We are still working through the details of what the code will include. The stuff that we are hearing this morning is incredibly valuable, because my officials and I will use it as the code is developed fully. Questions of the kind that you have just asked are still being worked on as we speak.
Minister, you will appreciate the difficulty that that creates for committee members. We do not know whether the removal of the card can apply to instances of antisocial behaviour away from a bus—associated not with the public transport but with the person having made use of concessionary travel. We do not know what the governance arrangements will be for the decision-making process in respect to any sanction that is to be applied, nor what threshold of evidence will be required in order to satisfy the decision maker in taking action. That makes it difficult for committee members to understand what we are expected to agree to.
In principle, I agree with the idea of being able to remove someone’s concessionary travel, but we need to be satisfied that we have worked through the practicalities and the operational assurance that is needed for “fairness, equity and inclusion”, as Young Scot described in its evidence. From what I am hearing this morning, we do not appear to be able to give that assurance.
I absolutely appreciate those concerns and all the considerations that we have heard from Young Scot, which has every ability to feed into the code of conduct—that is absolutely at the foundation of how the code of conduct is being drawn up. However, I absolutely take on board the committee’s concern that there are questions that we cannot answer at this stage. We can say, however, that we want to proceed with the principle of being able to remove the concessionary card.
I take the convener’s earlier point about withdrawing this Scottish statutory instrument and coming back with it. My concern is the timescales for the parliamentary process, given where we are in the parliamentary session. I hope that we can take enough comfort from the team that is pulling together the documentation that it will approach this properly and equitably, ensuring that fairness is at the heart of what they are trying to do. My officials are more than capable of that.
I therefore ask the committee to agree to the principle of allowing us to remove the card if the thresholds have been met.
I will expand a little on the deputy convener’s line of questioning. The minister has pointed out the way in which the issue will be dealt with if incidents happen during the course of travel. However, as many members around the table have experienced, the complaints are mainly about where the antisocial behaviour takes place. People travel on the bus, get off the bus, commit the antisocial behaviour, then get back on the bus. A prime example of such behaviour is in the Union Square shopping centre in Aberdeen. Lots of folk are saying, “Why on earth have these kids got the ability to travel from one end of the city to the other to cause chaos, then go away?”
We need to know where all of this applies—whether it is just on the bus or where folk have used free travel to get to an area and cause antisocial behaviour there. We need more clarity on that.
Beyond that, what your officials have described is basically that criminality would have to have taken place in order for the card to be withdrawn. That is grand, but there is a fine line between what some folks would see as antisocial behaviour and what others would see as annoyance. The code of conduct needs to be explicit about such things.
When I was going home the other week on the Megabus, a woman on the bus barked orders at her dog all the way from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. Quite frankly, it was doing me in—but, let us be honest, that is not any reason to take away the woman’s bus pass.
We need to say explicitly where the lines are. Is it only criminality? What constitutes antisocial behaviour? We cannot do that, sitting here today. How are you going to convince the committee, minister, that what you are embarking on—which I think is the right thing to do—covers all the bases that we want to be covered and, beyond that, is fair and equitable?
I take on board the point that Kevin Stewart makes.
It was a point, I think.
The next question comes from Bob Doris.
We are almost violently agreeing on the principle here—we are trying to get the detail right and give the committee confidence. It will be difficult for the Government to do that.
Mr Stewart made a very reasonable point but, within it, he said something that I disagreed with in relation to the code of conduct needing to be explicit. In previous exchanges, I wrote down the word “context”. I go back to Mr Ruskell’s point—Mr Ruskell asked about the example of a person with headphones on. You cannot possibly answer that question, minister, because context is everything. FirstBus’s conditions of carriage state that it is a breach of those conditions to
“play or operate any musical equipment or instruments (including radios, mobile phones, MP3 devices etc) on vehicles at a volume that is likely to cause annoyance to other Customers”.
Are bus companies enforcing that just now? Possibly, but probably not. That is due to driver safety as much as anything else, I suspect. So, the word “explicit” gives me a bit of nervousness when context is everything.
Let me give another example. Mr Ruskell talked about life experiences and I was personally involved in such a situation the other day. He was talking about disabled people and some of the issues that they have in accessing a bus—whether there is space for someone with a wheelchair and, sometimes, for a personal assistant to help them to get on the bus. The other day, I got on the bus with my children’s two scooters, one of which was foldable and the other of which was not, although it was smaller. I got on the bus fine on the way out to a skate park; on the way back, the driver politely and professionally challenged me about whether I could take that larger scooter on the bus. Being a geek, I knew the conditions of carriage: I could do so at the driver’s discretion. On the way to the skate park, the driver gave me permission at his discretion to get on the bus with both scooters, but perhaps, on the way back, a different driver would not use that discretion, leaving me and my family unable to get home.
The driver was very professional when he let me on the bus, so why do I make that rather trivial point? It is because context is everything. I want to see a code of conduct with broad brushstroke principles and, perhaps, underpinning guidance that allows contextualised decisions to be taken by Transport Scotland.
There is a question in there, which is: should the code be explicit, should it have broad principles, and how does context come into all of that and into the decision making?
All those things that you said, particularly about context, are vitally important to making sure that we get the code right.
We are not disagreeing on the principle of being able to remove the entitlement to travel. As I said, we have just received the response from Young Scot. Again, I apologise for not having the code in front of me, but I wanted to be sure that we could get as many of the potential problems, issues, loopholes and concerns fed into it as possible. I am finding this meeting incredibly useful, because we can now feed some of the points that have been raised into what the code will look like, and the code will then come back to the committee.
Will there be associated guidance, or will the code stand alone?
The code will come with guidance. I will ask Eilidh McCabe to confirm whether that is right.
Do you mean guidance for operators or for users?
I suppose that I mean guidance for everyone, but I will leave that to the minister and his team. I am asking what the thoughts are currently on guidance.
We anticipate that there will need to be some education—which might take the form of guidance—particularly for bus drivers, on what they need to know to be able to report incidents to Transport Scotland, perhaps through their depot managers; what antisocial behaviour looks like; and what thresholds we would anticipate coming into the code of conduct. We are trying to make the draft code easily accessible in order for everyone to understand the expectations that will be placed on them. There might also be an explanation of what the consequences of not meeting those standards might be.
We can also share the current code as drafted for comments from the committee. If the committee comes back with comments and suggestions, we will be more than happy to look at them.
Minister, you talked about bringing the code back to the committee. I am content today to give the Scottish Government the power, via Transport Scotland, to withdraw that entitlement to travel—in certain circumstances, where that power is contextualised and appropriate. What we are debating today is the process around how that power will be used and how it will be proportionate. You mentioned bringing the code back to the committee. Would the committee have a further vote on whether to approve that code or otherwise? That might determine how I view today’s evidence session.
No. There would not be a further vote on the principle of allowing the concessionary cards to be removed. The code of conduct would come back to the committee for it to comment on and feed into so that we have as broad a range of views—from the committee and from the people who have written to us—as possible. That is to make sure that the code covers everything that we need it to cover. I will provide a copy of the current draft code for the committee to feed comments into it. We will take on board the new stuff that we have heard today, and that will help us to put together a final code of conduct that should then be put in place.
If there is time, I might come back in later, but I think that I have had a fair crack of the whip for the moment.
There I was, when scheduling for this with the clerks, thinking that it would all be over in 30 minutes, apart from the shouting. How wrong I was.
This is a really important issue. Like the convener, I have to declare an interest in that I have a free bus pass for the over-60s. When it was introduced, I never thought that I would be using it. Having taken part in the parliamentary debates and seen evidence from constituents, I can see that there is antisocial behaviour out there. There are people who are conducting themselves in absolutely inappropriate ways, and it is putting drivers at risk, so this could not be more important.
It is important to discuss both the principle of removing people’s passes and the circumstances for doing so. I hope that we can come back to the issue, because Young Scot was not consulted, and there have been comments from the Scottish Youth Parliament and from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. It is really important that safeguards are in place. I would like to discuss both those things at the same time.
I would also like to hear more about travel safety officers and how they will be targeted to support the safety of bus users. The fact that people are not using buses came through in evidence from young people; they worry about using the bus now, because other people conduct themselves totally inappropriately. Where is the resource for that and how will it be targeted?
09:45
How do we raise the profile of the legislation so that young people can see it? Should it be through TV, social media, adverts and schools but also more widely? As has been commented on, it is not just young people who might abuse their bus pass by not behaving appropriately; certain other groups of people might do so, too. Could there be something in guidance and in the code of conduct? It is really important that you consider all that.
My final question is about the disability issue. Will drivers be briefed about people with Tourette’s, for example? There are some really important issues in how the legislation is implemented. People want it to be implemented, but we must ensure that the process in relation to the code of conduct is fair when Transport Scotland is considering the removal of a bus pass. I hope that the minister listens to us and that the committee has spare time to enable us to get this right, because it is so important.
The reason why it is taking so long to get the code of conduct is precisely so that we look at all the issues that have been raised by the committee today. You are absolutely correct: it is vital that we get it right. The process must have fairness, equity and parameters, and it must understand context, as Bob Doris was saying. I completely take on board all those things. The principle of being able to remove a pass was the primary reason for laying the SSI at this stage, so that we could get the process moving and ensure that we did not run out of parliamentary time to get it done. I hope that the committee has enough confidence that the work that you are all asking about is being undertaken and that it will be done diligently by the team of officials who are working on it.
Do you not want to answer any of the specific questions that I posed about the safety issue and travel safety officers? The travel safety officers issue is not just about the code of conduct. It is also about how we get the SSI implemented effectively as a new piece of legislation that ensures that there are consequences for antisocial and disruptive behaviour on our buses.
As I said earlier, we are looking at potential visible safety measures, including travel safety officers—we can call them that just now—which some private operators already have.
On how we will publicise it, there are a number of routes for how that will be done. A lot of it will be through social media, if it is targeted at young people, but there will be other things that we can do to ensure that people understand it.
Passing the SSI is a signal that the kind of behaviour that you rightly talk about as unacceptable will be tackled. All of this will build up the momentum to make sure that people understand that, with a bus pass, there is a responsibility as well as a right. Therefore, the code of conduct has to be clear and understood by people.
You had a lot of questions, Sarah, and I am not sure that we will get through them all. As I am conscious of the time, I will move to Douglas Lumsden, unless there is a specific question that you want to ask or that you feel is not sufficiently answered for you to move on.
There were a couple of questions on disabilities earlier, and I raised another example. Proper guidance is needed on all those issues to make people aware of them, so I would like to hear a commitment about that. As other members have said, the two issues go together: what we are discussing today and the context. That needs to be in the code of conduct, because young people have not been consulted—we have had that feedback. Getting the two right is critical.
I would dispute that young people have not been consulted. They have been consulted.
Sorry, but not all young people—
I refer to the correspondence that the committee has received from Young Scot. Bear in mind that Young Scot sits on the Confederation of Passenger Transport stakeholder group, so it has been part of this process. You have seen the responses from a number of different groups, including the Youth Parliament. Young people have been consulted. However, there is more work to be done, which we will endeavour to do.
What about the concerns expressed by the children’s commissioner and the SYP?
That is why there is on-going work to ensure that we get this right.
Let us say that I am a 16-year-old and I have had my entitlement removed. Would that entitlement be gone for the rest of my life? Would a time period be put on that? How would I get it back? Would there be an appeals process? Can you explain some of the process around that?
It is not gone for good. It will depend on the severity of the sanction that was placed on the young person. I am not quite sure what the process is at the moment for how they get it back—whether they have to write and ask. How is it done at the moment?
They would have to reapply.
They would reapply to get their bus pass back.
Would there be a time limit before they could reapply, or could they reapply straight away? How would that work?
It would be after the suspension has finished.
Okay, so that I can get this clear in my head, the bus operator would report the issue to Transport Scotland, which would decide on a sanction. How long would the process take after the bus operator has reported the issue to Transport Scotland? How about somebody who was constantly involved in antisocial behaviour? Would the bus company still have to put up with that person? How long for?
The specific details on how long are still being worked out. We would anticipate that there would be a period of time to allow the cardholder to put their side forward, including any mitigating circumstances such as disabilities, as suggested by committee members. A decision would then be made.
Do you anticipate that being a week or a month? How long would it take?
It would be a matter of weeks, not months. That detail has not quite been ironed out yet, but there would need to be enough time to allow someone to make representations to Transport Scotland and for those to be considered.
How would the person’s details be captured? Would the driver get those details from the young person’s travel card? How would they capture the details to report that person?
It would be in the transaction details on the card system. The driver would be able to take the card details off the system and use them in the report to Transport Scotland.
The young person has tapped their card, so the driver would be able to get the details from the system and report that person. Are there any general data protection regulation issues around how that is being handled by the driver?
As part of the SSI development, we consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on data sharing and how to do that appropriately. We intend to develop a standard reporting template to ensure that the information that is shared is only what is necessary for the process. We are trying to discourage any unnecessary information sharing, and the information sharing would be only among specific parties. Bus operators would need to assure themselves that they, too, are meeting the data protection requirements.
That would be part of the guidelines, I presume.
Yes.
Minister, I have a question about whether the entitlement could be removed at certain times of the day. For example, let us say that a young person is using the bus to get to school. Is there an option to say that they can keep their entitlement until 6 o’clock in the evening and then are no longer allowed to use that entitlement, because they have been involved in antisocial behaviour? Was that considered? If so, was it discounted?
My understanding is that that was not considered. If the entitlement is removed, the entitlement is removed completely.
Just to clarify, if the entitlement is removed, you are removing the young person’s ability to get to education. Is that what you are saying?
No—
That is what you just said.
No, it is not. The ability to get to education is the responsibility of a local authority—it is the local authority’s responsibility to provide the young person’s travel. The scheme was never designed to get young people to their education. That responsibility lies with the local authority.
Just to push the point so that I fully understand it, if a young person uses Lothian Buses, for example, to go to school, and he or she has had their concessionary travel removed, they can walk or cycle but they are not allowed to use the bus to go to school. That seems bizarre.
It depends on whether they can pay, and on whether the local authority has a requirement to provide free travel to school for them. The concessionary scheme is not about school transport.
They cannot use their travel card; they just have to pay their money. That does not protect bus users from being abused.
If someone has had their card removed, they will have gone through a process to ensure that that was appropriate. The scheme was never about giving free travel to children to get to school—we were absolutely clear about that. If there is a requirement for the local authority to provide that person’s travel to school and it has chosen to let pupils use the concessionary travel scheme instead, that is a local authority issue. It is not an issue for the scheme.
Okay. I am going to stop the questions there, for a variety of reasons. We are at the limit of our time for this discussion and various issues have been raised. Unusually, I am going to move the meeting into private so that the committee can discuss what we are going to do about the SSI. Everyone, apart from the committee, will have to leave the room so that the clerks can explain the procedure.
09:56
Meeting continued in private.
10:25
On resuming—
Welcome back. We move to agenda item 4, which is subordinate legislation, to debate motion S6M-20054, which calls on the committee to recommend that the draft National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 be approved. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.
Given the considerations that I have heard from the committee, I am concerned that it is not minded to recommend the approval of the SSI. I am extremely disappointed with that, given that the committee, members in the chamber and stakeholders all asked us for it.
I accept that the draft code of conduct is not in front of the committee, and I have apologised for that. However, no code will ever be perfect; you could give me 200 different scenarios on which we could come up with a range of different views. What we have is an opportunity to provide security for the bus sector, which has asked us to give it the tools and security that it wants to be able to remove a concessionary travel entitlement from someone who is consistently or damagingly creating antisocial behaviour.
I do not want to move the motion on the amendment regulations if I do not have the committee’s support. I am concerned about the way that the debate has gone this morning and that the committee is so minded. Does the committee have anything to add before I decide whether to move the motion?
According to procedure, minister, it is up to you to speak to the motion and to say at this stage whether you will move it or not move it. I am just looking at the clerks and that is correct: at this stage, it is up to you, not the committee, to make recommendations. I can make some comments on behalf of the committee if you decide not to move it.
I do not want to move the motion today and then have to go through the whole process again. That would be wrong for the stakeholders and the Parliament, and would be the wrong thing to do. I am extremely concerned that the committee will not recommend the approval of the SSI—which was asked for—so I will not move the motion.
Minister, thank you for making that decision. As convener of the committee, I say to you that there is no doubt that committee members accept the need for the legislation, and I believe that the committee will empower me to work with you to ensure that what can be done is done to allow you to bring the matter back as soon as possible, so that we can fully understand the proposals. I give you that assurance, and I thank you for making your position clear this morning.
I briefly suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses.
10:28
Meeting suspended.
10:31
On resuming—
Air adhart
Draft Climate Change Plan