The asylum scheme is a pilot scheme. It is budgeted at £2 million, but, beyond that, those are budget questions that you would have to ask the cabinet secretary.

The order that is currently in front of us is about what happens on the bus. If other antisocial behaviour issues need to be dealt with, Police Scotland and the criminal justice system will deal with them.

Okay. As we have discussed, the free bus travel provided by the national concessionary travel scheme is invaluable to those who use it—it provides life-changing benefits for many people. As the committee is aware, the legislation being introduced today is designed to protect those benefits by increasing safety on the bus network and ensuring that a small minority of cardholders who engage in antisocial behaviour are deterred from doing so. That policy has been asked for by members of the public, politicians and the bus sector itself.

The legislation will allow access to concessionary travel to be suspended or withdrawn from anyone who breaches the code of conduct. It sets out appropriate behaviour for those travelling on the bus network who are using their entitlement to free bus travel. The code will explain the kinds of behaviours that might result in suspension of concessionary travel and will apply to all cardholders, regardless of age.

A draft of the code has been shared with the committee to aid its scrutiny of the instrument. The definition of antisocial behaviour in section 143 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is deliberately broad. That reflects the fact that the exhaustive list of behaviour considered antisocial by the Government would be unworkable and anomalous. For the same reason, the draft code of conduct does not include a comprehensive list of behaviours, but broadly outlines the behaviours that might have a significant impact on bus drivers or other passengers.

Given the impact that the suspension might have on a cardholder, the code is designed to ensure that withdrawal or suspension of free travel is considered only by exception and that it is proportionate.

To support enforcement of the code of conduct, officials are developing supporting policies relating to reporting, suspension and review of any decisions to suspend. I have provided a high-level written overview of what is being considered regarding these procedures, but we will continue our approach of close collaboration with stakeholders to finalise the procedures.

Before I take questions, I want to be clear that our phased approach to implementation is appropriate and necessary. It is essential that we establish a fair and robust process that considers business impacts, child wellbeing and poverty considerations, data implications and options to phase in the policy to ensure that it is known to users, and that we address any operational issues. The instrument will secure the enabling power for the policy and send a clear message that antisocial behaviour on the bus network will not be tolerated. It will provide a strong foundation for Transport Scotland to continue the work with operators and partners—which strongly support the legislation—to finalise the supporting procedures.

I am happy to take any questions. I move the motion and recommend that the draft order be approved.

I am sorry, convener, but I cannot answer questions about individual cases.

The purpose of the order is to allow Transport Scotland to take actions to remove a bus pass from someone who is committing antisocial behaviour. I am not going to comment on the death of Mr Rollinson and I am not going to go any further with this conversation about him. I think that it is inappropriate and disrespectful. I am sorry, Mr Lumsden, but I am finding it really distasteful, because we are discussing an order that is about antisocial behaviour going forward, not about something that has happened in the past. I cannot give guarantees on anything in relation to Mr Rollinson’s position, and I would rather not discuss Mr Rollinson’s position.

It is not about whether I have a view. It is about the process that we are putting in place and about the fact that the Parliament and stakeholders are asking us to put an SSI in place to allow the Government and Transport Scotland to go through a process to remove somebody’s right to have free bus travel.

I am afraid that you are completely mischaracterising what has been discussed, which is unfortunate, because I hoped that, given that it has been a demand from the entire Parliament, we would get to the point at which the SSI gets passed.

We have already discussed that. If an incident takes place on a bus, Transport Scotland will scrutinise that in conjunction with the discussions that it has had with stakeholders about whether it is appropriate to remove a bus pass. We will not sit here and give a prescriptive list.

I have also said that the instrument is deliberately broad to allow the proper scrutiny by Transport Scotland, in its wisdom, to decide whether the pass should be removed.

Which is criminality.

We already have zero tolerance of criminality and the justiciary will go through the process to prosecute criminality. What we are talking about is antisocial behaviour, which is a different thing. If there is criminal behaviour, the police and other authorities carry out the processes that they have to carry out to deal with that. This is about giving Transport Scotland the ability to remove the entitlement to a bus pass if somebody is displaying antisocial behaviour, being foul and abusive, hurting someone physically or harassing people in any way.

We are discussing two different things here. I absolutely agree, 100 per cent, that there is zero tolerance of violence; I could not agree more. However, that is not what this is. The direct result of somebody committing violence and then being convicted of a crime is, in all likelihood, that they will lose their use of a bus pass, but that would be incidental to the fact that they have been prosecuted for criminality.

Yes, they would be.