Seòmar agus comataidhean

They should get into politics. [Laughter.]

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?

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?

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?

It does. That is a positive thing. I asked for a case study and you have given me a specific example, which is very helpful. However, my underlying question was about whether we can do more of that targeted work and how we can roll that out and quantify it.

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.

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?

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.

How would our successor committee have a conversation with you about that this time next year? You might tell us in February 2026 that the emerging priorities are X, Y and Z. After a year has passed, how can we find out how you have got on by looking at the data and the measurements? I think that you are saying that the local action plans are separate from the national priorities.

That is all very general. Do you want to come in, Professor Higgins?