Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, welcome the debate, which was unfortunately prompted by dreadful, tragic circumstances, and I send my condolences to Keith Rollinson’s family and friends.

I note that the focus is on the impact of the concessionary bus pass for young people, which was introduced in January 2022. I recognise that any threat and aggression from, or anxiety caused by, passenger to driver and, indeed, other passengers are to be deplored. However, to give some context, more than 2.3 million people in Scotland have a concessionary pass—everyone under 22 or over 60 and disabled people and carers can now all benefit from free bus travel. Therefore, as other members have said, the overwhelming majority—young and old—use their pass responsibly. However, it is a privilege and, when abused, remedies are required.

Sometimes, crimes are being committed, so existing remedies can be used. They include diversionary and early intervention activities, if appropriate, alongside the use of police-issued formal warnings, fixed-penalty notices, antisocial behaviour orders and, indeed, prosecution. However, those activities happen post the event.

CCTV, which I know is on Borders buses and most Lothian regional transport buses, has its uses and might act as a limited deterrent, but there are those to whom it means nothing—in extreme cases, they might even see it as offering a challenge.

The briefing from the Confederation of Passenger Transport says that the under 22s free bus travel scheme is widely viewed as a success. There is, however, an acknowledgement that one unintended consequence has been a perceived rise in antisocial behaviour in and around buses in Scotland, observed by bus operators but also by young people themselves, other passengers and representative groups.

The year 1 evaluation of the young persons free bus travel scheme highlighted

“the perceived need to introduce some mechanism to police the use of the scheme and implement consequences for inappropriate behaviour.”

I agree.

Let me focus on the minority of those—with or without a concessionary bus pass, young or old—who abuse. Although bus operators have their own conditions of carriage, those conditions apply to all passengers and include legal obligations regarding passenger conduct and, indeed, the right to refuse access to someone who wants to board.

It has been suggested that hotlisting passes would send a strong message and could be used to stop people boarding another bus, but that would mean that the driver still had a policing role and that confrontation would be possible. Protection and respect for the driver and other passengers are paramount.

I understand that Transport Scotland has the authority to remove the free bus travel benefit. Presently, it is revoked if the card is used fraudulently but not when an individual assaults a bus driver—that is surely wrong.

Finally, I have reviewed my own case files and found only one complaint regarding youth behaviour, which was in Midlothian on Lothian buses in 2023. I contacted the police, and the Midlothian community action team carried out additional patrols in the affected areas. A combination of high-visibility and plain-clothes patrols were also deployed on buses to deter and disrupt antisocial behaviour and identify those who were responsible. Although no criminal behaviour was identified, a number of youths were taken home to be warned about their behaviour in front of their parents.

I have had nothing from Borders buses in respect of young people. It may be that the drivers are local and know their passengers, and the passengers know their drivers. That perhaps lends itself to a more responsible culture and respect. It may be different in rural areas because culprits can be easily identified—I do not know.

I note the progress on a code in relation to receiving a concessionary bus pass, which I would welcome—I have a bus pass myself—and I support progress on restricting the passes of those who abuse them, whoever they are. It is a privilege to have one, and it should be used appropriately.

I, too, congratulate Richard Leonard on securing the debate. As we both know, this is not the first debate we have taken part in—and it will possibly not be the last—not just on the strike of 1984 but on the miners’ pension fund, the Miners’ Strike Pardon (Scotland) Act 2022, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and, in fact, Mick McGahey.

I am older than other speakers and saw the charges on the miners by the mounted police, the women manning barricades at the picket lines and collecting for their communities, and communities—and, indeed, some families—being torn apart. I listened to Arthur Scargill and Mick McGahey.

During that long strike, the voice of Mick McGahey was more measured than that of Arthur Scargill, although, right to the end, Mick McGahey insisted that the 1984 strike was unavoidable and that the union’s tactics had been correct in the circumstances. I understand that there was a failed attempt to solve the dispute involving secret talks between Lord Whitelaw, the Tory deputy leader, and Mick McGahey, but Thatcher was out to avenge the demise of her predecessor, Edward Heath, who had taken on the miners with the resulting three-day week, failed and lost an election. When she came into government, she was hellbent on emasculating the unions, starting with the miners, and she succeeded.

It was the first time that I had witnessed British police attacking British people who were simply defending their jobs and their communities. I watched the scenes on the news bulletins with my late mother, who was a formidable advocate for the miners because, for her, it was personal. Her father was a Welsh coal miner. I never met him. He died in his early 40s from a head injury that he sustained when a pit prop fell on him. In those days, surgery was not so sophisticated, and a steel plate had been inserted. He left his large family of children, including my late mother—a Derbyshire woman—orphaned, as his wife had died in childbirth. My mother never let us forget the hardships of mining, and the fact that he left those 10 orphan children. His death had an enduring effect on the way she led her life, as a committed socialist, and on how she saw coal mining, and she passed that on to me.

My mother raged against the Tory Government for its ruthless treatment of the miners, their families and their communities, and I, too, was shocked when police on horseback were sent charging into men who were simply demonstrating for their livelihoods. Often, those officers were shipped in from outside the community, because the local police could not be used or would not be used.

Little did I know that, one day, I would represent mining communities in Midlothian, in particular, Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Penicuick. The footprint of the mines in my constituency is there for all to see. It includes the mining museum in Newtongrange; the memorial high above Gorebridge to the miners who lost their lives in the pits; and the Shottstown miners welfare club in Penicuick. That is just a snapshot.

Convictions were to follow the strike, with 1,300 or more people being charged and more than 400 convicted but, at last, two years ago, this Parliament passed the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022. I absolutely agree with that symbolic and collective blanket pardon. Because the act does not get rid of the conviction, I appreciate that we still have the effect of the prerogative of mercy. However, the act is good enough, and, in any event, in practical terms, that issue might not be relevant, as convictions might now have lapsed through time, and records might be lost.

What is sad is that the UK Government has not followed the Scottish Parliament in introducing a collective pardon, although I commend it for, at long last, tackling the issue of the miners’ pension fund. That is an issue that I and Richard Leonard, as well as others, have campaigned on.

In particular—here I share Mr Leonard’s concern—there must be an inquiry into whether there was political interference in policing and the actions of the judiciary during that period.

I disagree with much of the point that the member makes—as he would expect. Does the member have any qualms about the manner of policing during that period? Would he perhaps address that?

I, too, welcome the debate, which was unfortunately prompted by dreadful, tragic circumstances, and I send my condolences to Keith Rollinson’s family and friends.

I note that the focus is on the impact of the concessionary bus pass for young people, which was introduced in January 2022. I recognise that any threat and aggression from, or anxiety caused by, passenger to driver and, indeed, other passengers are to be deplored. However, to give some context, more than 2.3 million people in Scotland have a concessionary pass—everyone under 22 or over 60 and disabled people and carers can now all benefit from free bus travel. Therefore, as other members have said, the overwhelming majority—young and old—use their pass responsibly. However, it is a privilege and, when abused, remedies are required.

Sometimes, crimes are being committed, so existing remedies can be used. They include diversionary and early intervention activities, if appropriate, alongside the use of police-issued formal warnings, fixed-penalty notices, antisocial behaviour orders and, indeed, prosecution. However, those activities happen post the event.

CCTV, which I know is on Borders buses and most Lothian regional transport buses, has its uses and might act as a limited deterrent, but there are those to whom it means nothing—in extreme cases, they might even see it as offering a challenge.

The briefing from the Confederation of Passenger Transport says:

“The under 22s Free Bus Travel Scheme is widely viewed as a success.”

It continues:

“There is however an acknowledgement that one unintended consequence has been a perceived rise in antisocial behaviour in and around buses in Scotland, observed by bus operators, but also by young people themselves, other passengers and representative groups. The Year 1 Evaluation of the Young Person’s Free Bus Travel Scheme highlighted ‘the perceived need to introduce some mechanism to police the use of the scheme and implement consequences for inappropriate behaviour.’”

I agree.

Let me focus on the minority of those—with or without a concessionary bus pass, young or old—who abuse. Although bus operators have their own conditions of carriage, those conditions apply to all passengers and include legal obligations regarding passenger conduct and, indeed, the right to refuse access to someone who wants to board.

It has been suggested that hotlisting passes would send a strong message and could be used to stop people boarding another bus, but that would mean that the driver still had a policing role and that confrontation would be possible. Protection and respect for the driver and other passengers are paramount.

I understand that Transport Scotland has the authority to remove the free bus travel benefit. Presently, it is revoked if the card is used fraudulently but not when an individual assaults a bus driver—that is surely wrong.

Finally, I have reviewed my own case files and found only one complaint regarding youth behaviour, which was in Midlothian on Lothian buses in 2023. I contacted the police, and the Midlothian community action team carried out additional patrols in the affected areas. A combination of high-visibility and plain-clothes patrols were also deployed on buses to deter and disrupt antisocial behaviour and identify those who were responsible. Although no criminal behaviour was identified, a number of youths were taken home to be warned about their behaviour in front of their parents.

I have had nothing from Borders buses in respect of young people. It may be that the drivers are local and know their passengers, and the passengers know their drivers. That perhaps lends itself to a more responsible culture and respect. It may be different in rural areas because culprits can be easily identified—I do not know.

I note the progress on a code in relation to receiving a concessionary bus pass, which I would welcome—I have a bus pass myself—and I support progress on restricting the passes of those who abuse them, whoever they are. It is a privilege to have one, and it should be used appropriately.

The Labour manifesto proposed to

“deliver economic stability with tough spending rules so that we can grow our economy and keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible.”

Then there was the notorious promise that working people would see no difference in their pay packets, because there would be no increase in income tax or national insurance for those “working people”, which, apparently, did not include any employer, no matter whether they ran a humble corner shop with a couple of employees.

What is the impact of increases in employers’ national insurance? More than 7,000 charities in Scotland employ more than 133,000 people, which is 5 per cent of Scotland’s workforce. As already referenced, the SCVO has estimated that it could cost the sector £75 million. The third sector cannot pass increased costs to service users, so cuts to services must follow. My inbox is full of briefings from charities, large and small, confirming that. For example, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—I declare an interest as I am a member—is set to lose £400,000 a year due to the measure, which is almost double the cost of feeding all the animals in its care across Scotland for one year.

In the health service, there are currently 35 GP practices in my constituency. The tax hike from the UK Government will impact their services and is unavoidable. Heaven knows what the additional cost will be to the NHS Borders across all its services, let alone the care sector.

Among local businesses, I have been advised that the wage bill of Borders Buses will rise by at least 6 per cent, which will restrict its investment in future recruitment and training and might force it to cut back on marginal services, potentially impacting the local communities that it serves.

In the retail sector, more than 80 businesses, including supermarkets such as Asda and Tesco, have written to Rachel Reeves, saying:

“For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timescale.

The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level. This will impact high streets and customers right across the country.”

All of that was predictable: higher prices for essentials, cutbacks and job losses. Indeed, the independent OBR has projected that approximately 50,000 jobs could be lost due to the increase in national insurance contributions.

Someone’s pay packet might look the same, but it certainly will not buy as much as it used to—that is if they still have a pay packet, having avoided losing their job due to one of those cutbacks. I ask Ms Mochan, how is that protecting working people?

I return to that Labour manifesto promise to

“grow our economy and keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible.”

How is that going? Is a predicted figure of 50,000 job losses growing the economy? We have higher prices and mortgage increases—is that keeping mortgages and inflation “as low as possible”?

We have a depressed economy, people are unable to afford essentials, and there are cuts to public services and charities. No wonder Jackie Baillie sounded so rattled, defending the indefensible. No wonder the Labour benches are practically empty. No wonder Labour had spare speaking slots. Shameful.

On the OBR’s prediction, does the member accept, as I do, that 50,000 jobs could be lost across the UK economy simply because of employer contributions to national insurance rising—something that the Labour Party would not let me intervene to say?

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I seek clarification, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am certainly not challenging you in any way, but I do not know whether Mr Griffin said that he was not taking interventions. I just want to know whether that is the case, so that I do not waste my time trying to intervene.

I hope that you have not just said something that you will regret, Presiding Officer—that happens in here.

I initially had 12 years in this Parliament representing the rural South of Scotland region and, for the past 13 years, I have represented Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, a constituency that has many farms and which runs from the Eildon hills to the Pentland hills. As I have said previously, during those 25 years, I have visited many estates, such as Burncastle in the Borders and Arniston in Midlothian, as well as farms, such as Baddinsgill in the Borders and Moorfoot and Eastside in Midlothian.

Although this debate is about the appalling impact on family farming of the Labour Government’s changes to inheritance tax, which, when combined with changes to agricultural property relief, are bad enough, there is also an impact on local businesses, suppliers, hauliers and so on. All that, combined with increases to employer national insurance contributions, will have a devastating impact on the rural economy.

The Labour Party appears to have little concept of rurality or of Scotland’s farming landscape. Of the 37 Labour members who were privileged to be elected at the recent general election, I have yet to find one who has broken ranks to criticise those policies. I have written to Kirsty McNeill, the newly elected member for Midlothian, who has rural and island issues as part of her ministerial brief, to see what she has to say about the changes both to agricultural property relief and to national insurance.

What do Labour members here say? Their silence speaks louder than words. During the debate on this issue last week, I felt heart sorry for Rhoda Grant, a decent colleague who, in some discomfort, had to defend the UK Labour position. I see that she has escaped having to reprise that defence here today. Colin Smyth spoke about practically anything but the injustice of inheritance tax changes for Scotland’s farmers. I have a health warning for Labour: if you are merely a megaphone for the UK Labour Party and if you speak and behave like a branch of UK Labour, perhaps you are merely a branch of UK Labour, as Johann Lamont foretold. Perhaps I am being too generous to Labour members, who may be less of a branch and more of a twig.

I will take an intervention from Colin Smyth.

I beg your pardon; I got carried away.

The Labour Party should be taxing the rich, not farmers who are struggling as it is. The failures of Labour members to speak up on the levy on family farms, on the impact of the hike in employer national insurance that also affects farmers, on the means testing of the winter fuel payment, on the two-child benefit cap or on the rural visa to alleviate the loss of a labour force following Brexit are all testament to those members’ status.

If that were not bad enough, it is compounded by the promise before the election from the then shadow and now Government Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed, who said that the Labour Party had no plans to change inheritance tax or agricultural property relief. That is a betrayal and it is endorsed by Labour members here.

Many family farms across Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale will be affected, because it does not take much for assets to be worth more than £1 million. We might take the UK Labour Government at its best by believing that various reliefs for spouses and so on will mean that the impact will mostly be on assets worth more than £3 million. That looks like a lot on paper, but when we look in farm sheds at the combine harvesters, tractors, quad bikes, milking parlours and feed for stock, let alone the farmhouse and the land, we can see that even £3 million is an easy figure to reach. A new high-end combine harvester can cost at least £750,000. Farmers might look rich in assets, or even be so, but they are poor in revenue.

We must remember that, for many, farming is a family matter. It is a generational and intergenerational vocation 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from dawn to dusk and in all kinds of weathers. Farming is literally—to abuse that word—under farmers’ fingernails as they provide not only the quality food on our tables, high standards of animal welfare and exports but the very landscape that we take for granted. Ironically, family farms might be forced to sell up and become the property of the commercial investors that this policy is meant to target. There are levies with no impact assessment or engagement with farmers, which also completely fail to respect devolution because of a lack of engagement with the Scottish Government.

What more does the Labour UK Government intend to do to undermine our farming and rural communities, many of which are reliant on the trade of local farms? As I understand it, according to the UK Government, all of this is to raise £240 million in the first year, but how many millions of pounds will be lost to the rural economy and how much will be lost in the heartache and concern of farming families? It is time for Labour members, at least in the Scottish Parliament, to speak up, for once, or are they going to remain twigs?