Chamber and committees

:Those points are well made.

I will make this my final question, convener—I will not come back in, because of time constraints. It was important to put all of that on the record, Emma, and it will be helpful to the committee, but I would just note that the Scottish Government’s target for tree planting over the lifetime of the plan as laid out does not go beyond what the Climate Change Committee has suggested. The difference is that the modelling that it is using to assert the benefit of tree planting is, it says, more accurate and more informed than—and, again, I say this respectfully—the information available to the Climate Change Committee. The quantum of trees being planted is no greater, despite its being an alternative pathway. Will the Climate Change Committee, at any point, take a view on the Scottish Government’s modelling work? I suppose that that is the substantive question.

:That was helpful—thank you.

When will the Government next review its options for uprating? The reason I ask is that, as I see from the briefing, the Scottish Commission on Social Security noted that analysis was last done on uprating options in 2024 and said that they should be reviewed again in due course. What do you take “in due course” to mean?

Should they take place?

I have a brief thought. I note that, in 2025-26, £12.1 million was paid out in funeral support payments. I want to talk about whether that is a sufficient amount to fund the value of the services. I am sure that we will look at that in a moment, but that is still a lot of money in the system. If only a small number of funeral directors are being hit by this issue—albeit disproportionately—could any sharing of risk be achieved in the system? Some funeral directors are doing okay out of the system, but others are not. If those who are willing to take on people on low incomes or on benefits accept a higher risk, a risk share arrangement between funeral directors might be a way in which some of the smaller providers could step forward as the only funeral service in their local area. They would know that, if they were let down for whatever reason, they would have the heft of the sector behind them. Have any discussions like that taken place?

So, rather than reviewing the uprating options at a set time in the future, the approach would be to review them when required, based on events and circumstances.

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?