Thank you, convener. I will start with the draft National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2026. The order gives effect to an agreement that was reached with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents Scottish bus operators. It sets for 2026-27 the reimbursement rate and capped level of funding in the national bus travel concession schemes for older and disabled persons and young persons. The order will enable reimbursement of bus operators for journeys that are made under both schemes after the expiry of the current reimbursement provisions, on 31 March 2026. It specifies the new reimbursement rates and capped level of funding for both schemes for the next financial year, to 31 March 2027.

An updated reimbursement model for both schemes, which was agreed and developed in partnership with the industry, was used for the first time last year. This year, we have used that model once again to set the proposed rates and budget caps for the schemes. The model uses the latest available data and evidence on industry costs, passenger demand and travel behaviours. The proposed reimbursement rate for the older and disabled persons scheme in 2026-27 has been amended from 52.9 per cent to 53 per cent of the adult single fare, and the capped level of the funding will be set at £248.2 million, which is an increase of £33.1 million from this year.

The proposed reimbursement rates for the young persons scheme for 2026-27 are as follows. For five to 15-year-olds, the rate will be 48.1 per cent of the adult single fare, which is an increase of 0.2 percentage points from the current rate of 47.9 per cent. For 16 to 21-year-olds, the rate will be 72.5 per cent, which is an increase of 0.1 percentage points from the current rate of 72.4 per cent. Since it began, in 2022, the young persons scheme has not been subject to a budget cap, as demand and patronage have been uncertain while the scheme has become established. However, demand is now relatively stable, with uptake by young people reaching around 90 per cent of the eligible population. The draft order before you therefore includes a budget cap of £220.6 million to be applied to the young persons scheme for 2026-27.

The national concessionary travel schemes continue to deliver life-changing benefits, supporting social inclusion, embedding sustainable travel habits and supporting 2.4 million card holders to access essential services. The draft order being discussed today will ensure that we can continue to deliver those successful, highly valued schemes, which provide a degree of stability to the bus sector on a basis that is fair to operators and affordable from public funds. I recommend that the draft order be approved.

First, I will push back on what Monica Lennon said to me, which is that the scheme was asked for urgently and that it has not been delivered well. It has been delivered as quickly as was possible. As we go through these conversations, the complexity of what is involved is quite clear—it is not simply a case of somebody being able to say, “I’m having your bus pass.” It is far more complex than that. Several issues must be considered, and it will take time to get it right. If we want speed, we can get it, and we will get a scheme that will not work in the way that it is expected to work, or we can ensure that it is done properly so that people get a full understanding of what it will do.

Secondly, on the question that you have asked about the reviews, those will be an operational decision for Transport Scotland, which will work with partners—including operators and the young and older people who will be affected by the scheme—to work out the appropriate results. Those partners will look at the operational aspects in order to get the process to where it needs to be. The SSI is about giving the power to be able to do so, and it is not unusual for us in the Parliament to work through the guidance and policy development with the partners that will be on the ground doing it.

That is not what we have done; again, you are mischaracterising what has been said. The draft code of conduct is quite clear that someone could lose their pass if they

“act in a way that hurts or threatens others.”

It includes some examples of that, such as hurting someone physically, which is a criminal act; using abusive, threatening or indecent language; any kind of harassment, such as racial abuse; and how it would be decided that it is antisocial behaviour. Mark Ruskell asked what would happen if someone was using indecent language and they have Tourette’s. Transport Scotland officials will have to look at that before any decision is made about whether to remove the individual’s bus pass. Those decisions would have to be made on an individual basis.

More importantly, I very much hope that the code will act as a deterrent and that it will not be a normal process to remove someone’s bus pass. It is about antisocial behaviour on buses; it will not solve the criminal justice system across Scotland.

We have not done any modelling on the number of passes that would be removed. As I said, there is a lot of complexity involved in this issue. Officials will go through the operational process of working out what removing bus passes would mean.

Again, as I said in my response to you, it is my expectation that that is what would happen. As Bob Doris pointed out, there is no ministerial direction here—it has to be an operational issue for Transport Scotland. As a minister, it is my expectation that such criminal acts would result in the loss of the bus pass. However, Douglas Lumsden has made the point that we would then be looking at retrospective decision making. I am not going to talk about the individual case, but he is talking about retrospective decision making, and that is not something that I can talk about right now.

I will have conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs with regard to all the things that we have talked about today. A huge amount of work is already going on in the Scottish Government that is well beyond the scope of the order, and nobody is going to defend the rights of women and children more than me or my colleagues in the Government—we have been very proactive in doing so. I am more than happy to continue working across Government, if that is what Monica Lennon wants to happen.

You have put it far more eloquently than I did. Yes, those are not ministerial decisions; they will be operational decisions for Transport Scotland.

I would like to understand what opportunity you think has been missed in terms of what we are trying to achieve with the order. I have not, in any way, tried to minimise the points that you have made during the discussion. The order has the specific function of removing, for antisocial behaviour on buses, passes from people who are entitled to them. There is massive complexity even within that, which is why it is taking time. I accept that the issue has been discussed for a number of years. However, proper and thorough investigation is still required as to whether it is the right thing to do, and, if so, how to do it. That is why we are here now.

I am curious, and this is not a gotcha question: what is the missed opportunity here, and what would you rather see going forward?

I do not believe that it was considered as a stand-alone thing. I believe that we took the findings from the round tables and the discussions that we had with various stakeholders and decided to look overall at the removal of bus passes in the case of antisocial behaviour. No specific thinking was done about criminality and the automatic removal of a bus pass. That is my understanding, unless Carole Stewart can tell me something different.

If we could deal with the first order first.

You are asking why the code is not more specific.