Seòmar agus comataidhean

I watched that meeting. I was disappointed by some of the comments and am very disappointed by some of those that you have just read out. I disagree with all of them. I absolutely accept that there will be tensions in the room—I very much took on board the criticisms of ARIOB. However, when I reflect on that, I think about where we were and where we are trying to go.

We talk about co-development and a just transition until they become just words and phrases and people start switching off, but the processes and principles behind them are absolutely essential. Co-development is about sitting down in the room with the stakeholders who are going to have access to more than £640 million of public funds. There will be differences of opinion when those diverse groups are sitting in the room, and being part of the co-design does not mean that you get what you want every time you ask for it; it means getting the opportunity to speak directly to ministers and officials and to talk about the requirements for the part of the sector that you are really passionate about.

Our job is to take that away, distil it down and think about how to take all the competing views and the requirements on us, as a Government, to reach the policy objectives that Parliament has agreed on. We have to pull all of that together to get a coherent policy. That is hard—it is not easy—but what underpins all of that is our absolute determination to continue that co-development and those conversations and to continue taking diverse views as we consider how to get this right.

We have made progress. We have the calf scheme, the whole-farm plan and the audits. We have things in place. We do not want to listen to what everyone says and then tell them that there is a system that they have to go with, because that would be a cliff edge. That might sound like a cliché, but that would be the cliff edge that the cabinet secretary committed not to take the Scottish system towards. We have seen what happened when other parts of the UK went down that road, and the Scottish Government is determined that that will not be the case here. I think we are on a trajectory that will let us allow farmers to put baselines into their own farms and work out where they are on the trajectory, so that they know what they need to do to move forward.

I absolutely take on board the criticisms that the committee aimed at us last week. We will consider those criticisms and will justify our reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with them, but I am more committed to ensuring that we continue our engagement in order to get the best possible policies.

No consultation was done, as none was required. However, QMS is aware that it will be covered by the ombudsman.

I disagree. When I talk about farming systems down south, I am merely giving an example. If you get something wrong, it is catastrophic and, as you and I will agree, a system of inheritance tax has been brought in that is going to be catastrophic for family farms—

Those decisions will be made by me and the cabinet secretary after we have been in consultation with the stakeholders. We will bring those policies forward in SSIs, as we have done before, as we build the jigsaw puzzle that Rhoda Grant mentioned. We will bring those SSIs to the committee, and you will get time to scrutinise them and to take evidence. You will then be able to have me in front of the committee, giving answers on any of the specific areas of policy that we are going to develop.

I believe that, if the people behind the system who are employed to do the job are giving me the reassurance that it can deliver, then it is value for money. At any time, if they have concerns about it, they will bring the issue to me.

I do not know what rates it asked for those to be set at. Carole Stewart was part of the negotiations, so perhaps she can answer that question.

We have a joined-up approach, but at the moment we are not filling in all the gaps. I assure you that I am actively looking at that.

I do not have any feedback to hand to talk about any cuts to services. I have not been told of any.

With regard to your specific question, the answer is no—I have not asked them to do that. However, I have asked them to consider whether young people who have the pass are using the bus. If those young people are transferring to being habitual bus users—and the next generation will also be getting their free bus pass—the scheme will be creating an environment of bus use.

I have not looked at the specific areas that you asked about, but with regard to the overall picture, I am looking at how the young persons pass is delivering behavioural change.

I cannot definitively answer whether it affects rural areas, but my sense is that it definitely does. I say that as an MSP with a rural constituency, knowing that I see rural bus services declining. Again, we are actively looking at how to address that, but it is not easy, because it is a deregulated industry.

To go back to the point that Mark Ruskell made about public funds going into a service, we have very little in the way of levers to determine where services are. Again, that comes back to franchising and the other powers that we are putting into the hands of local authorities.

There is an awful lot of stuff in the mix about how we are going to improve the service, which goes back to my earlier point. We are looking at different areas. We want to get the best value for public money, make sure that people are using the buses and work with private enterprises.