Chamber and committees

Amendment 60, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendments 61 and 63.

That did not provoke a response.

A couple of members have referred to speaking briefly in the interests of time, but we must give the bill proper consideration, so I am not trying to stop members debating it. I would just like to have that on the record. This is a valuable opportunity for the committee to consider the bill at stage 2, so if any member wants to make an intervention, they should not feel restricted by time. If we get to the stage where we are restricted by time, trust me—I will let you know. At the moment, however, we are not there.

With regard to the various amendments in Brian Whittle’s name that have been discussed so far, unfortunately, due to a clash with another committee that he sits on, he is unable to be at this meeting, which I know that he regrets. He has asked Douglas Lumsden to speak to his amendments, so I call Douglas to speak to amendment 46 and other amendments in the group.

I thank the cabinet secretary for engaging with committee members and with the parties. I believe that quite a lot of engagement has gone on, which, given the short timescale of the bill, has been helpful.

Turning specifically to amendments 3 and 9, I have always held the view, like the majority of witnesses who came to the committee, that alignment with the rest of the United Kingdom is in everyone’s interests. I still believe that—despite Mark Ruskell saying in the stage 1 debate and this morning that he does not agree—because, if Governments across the United Kingdom pull together and work together, that gives businesses the confidence to pull together and work together to gear up across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Gearing up together means that, when businesses produce technology, which we are definitely going to need if we are to reach our targets, we will be relying on technology that is proven rather than unproven—which could be the case if we tried to go at a faster speed than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why I believe that alignment is important, and I always have done.

As there are no other comments, I will turn to the cabinet secretary.

Yes. It is up to you whose intervention you take, but Bob Doris was first, followed by Monica Lennon, if that helps.

I notice that members are trying to intervene. Before we started this discussion, I promised that I would not look at the clock, but it is inappropriate not to look at the clock occasionally. Members and the minister can infer from that what they wish. Minister, it is up to you to take any interventions that you feel are appropriate.

Before I go to the minister, I would like to make a couple of comments. I started off this morning probably in the same position as Monica, not sure that a motion to annul would be the correct way forward. I have listened to the comprehensive evidence that we have taken this morning, which is quite interesting. I lived and breathed as convener of the REC Committee through the passage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill in 2019. I could probably quote some of the amendments and I saw where some of the issues were. The issue that we are discussing today was never flagged up then—it is not something that we saw—and the committee and the Parliament subsequently supported the franchising system.

Today’s meeting has demonstrated the Parliament when it is at its best, which is when we are doing something called post-legislative scrutiny. We are looking at something and saying to ourselves, “We’re not sure about this. We’re not sure if this is the right decision.” That is where we are at. Just because somebody is doing something elsewhere, following them and doing it in Scotland is not necessarily the right way to go.

I am not convinced by any of the arguments today that a motion to annul would delay the franchising system. In fact, I think that it will strengthen it. I think that it will make it better because everyone will buy into it and support it.

I do not want to put words into your mouth, minister, but you said that you were acutely aware of the feelings of the committee and that you would consider them afterwards. However, it will be up to the Cabinet, as a Cabinet Government, to decide whether changes can be made if the statutory instrument goes through. There is no guarantee to the committee that changes will be made if we allow it to go through. Things change—politics change—and therefore we cannot be sure of that.

For those reasons, and because I have very large concerns that what we are doing might not be the right way to go, I will support those members who said that passing a motion to annul is the right thing to do. I put on record that it is a testament to this committee that the process of post-legislative scrutiny of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which is effectively what we have done, has been effective.

I now pass to the minister before I ask Mr Lumsden to sum up.

Douglas Lumsden has some questions.

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.