Chamber and committees

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.

Will there be associated guidance, or will the code stand alone?

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.

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.

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?

John Dickie was right to put to us a challenge about whether the budget represents a missed opportunity, as was Hannah Randolph in relation to clarity about spend. I am taking the figures in the budget at face value, and they include an additional £150 million for whole-family support and £14 million in the tackling child poverty delivery plan. While we have the witnesses here, I want to say that those are not missed opportunities—they are actual opportunities in the year ahead.

Can you give us an idea—briefly, I am afraid, as we are short of time—of how you would like to see the additional £99 million spent to tackle child poverty? I do not want us to gloss over that significant investment.

This is an appropriate time at which to come in because, in our discussion about the UK Government’s new child poverty strategy, the committee is keen to see and understand the engagement that the UK Government has had with today’s witnesses and other stakeholders in a Scottish context, in relation to not just getting information from you but having a dialogue with you as part of the process of setting its strategy. I am therefore interested in knowing what engagement each witness’s organisation has had with the UK Government and how you would describe that engagement—whether as meaningful, deep or cursory. Mr Dickie, what has the situation been like? What has your experience been?

Hannah Randolph, I am not sure whether those are policy areas that the Fraser of Allander institute would engage with the UK Government on, but I would be interested to know whether that is the case.

Charis, I will ask you this question first because you mentioned the child maintenance service. In relation to the Scottish and UK Governments having a positive and constructive relationship, irrespective of whether there are disagreements, I think that the cabinet secretary, when she was at the committee a few weeks ago, was a bit frustrated—I will paraphrase—because it feels as though the Scottish Government gives information to the UK Government, which goes away with it and something may or may not materialise, rather than the two Governments having an on-going substantive dialogue. The important thing is that the Scottish Government is up for that on-going substantive dialogue with the UK Government.

My final question is, if you could pick two or three things for both Governments to have a substantive and constructive dialogue on, what would they be?

That is very helpful.