���˿���

When their president and their director of policy are going around the country saying, “You need to be aware of this,” that is tremendously effective. I am delighted that we have a working relationship with the NFUS and can have conversations and say, “We need to get this out to your members. What’s the best way to disseminate that? We will do our bit as Government, but, if you do your bit, too, through your relationship with your members, that helps us to get the information out there.” That is a fundamental point.

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 will have to ask Gary McIntyre whether he knows what the actual split is between fare-paying and concessionary passengers.

I said to the committee earlier that I am actively looking at all the things that we are doing and how we make the service better. That would include the particular point that you put to me.

Members are all advocating for their different areas, regions and constituencies.

A lot of work has been done on the overall issue of antisocial behaviour. As I said earlier, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety tasked an independent working group on antisocial behaviour with looking at the issue; it was due to report by the end of 2024, but its report will be published shortly. It has gathered a wide range of evidence from all areas.

However, I make it absolutely clear—and I make this point every time that we talk about this issue—that antisocial behaviour happens not because of bus passes, but because of people behaving antisocially. As for removing cards themselves, we are still exploring the legal means of suspending access to concessionary travel for perpetrators of persistent antisocial behaviour of any age, not just the under-22s. I keep re-emphasising that, because what really bothered me about this debate was that it started to demonise under-22s using the concessionary scheme. It was giving young people a brand that they did not deserve; after all, the vast majority are perfectly well behaved.

We are still looking at removing cards, and at whether that is what we want to do. We need to work out what that would do to the scheme and the impact on other elements of the entitlement card. After all, cards are not just bus passes. This is an on-going issue that we are looking at; indeed, I will be meeting CPT tomorrow to talk about antisocial behaviour. We are actively engaged in that work.