Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am just trying to understand what the “exceptional” circumstances might be. Have you any idea?

Yes.

Bob Doris asked me about my motives for the annulment motion. I want to set out straight away that it is not about trying to derail franchising; it is about trying to ensure that we get it right. When I lodged the motion to annul, I did not think that I would move it. My idea was to listen to the minister’s answers, then decide. From the answers that have been given, it is clear that annulling would not really delay franchising. We heard that in the answer to a question from Graham Simpson.

We need to have legislation that is correct and which works. It is up to the Government to review what is in place and then to bring forward changes that will actually do what we want to do. We have seen evidence on the experience in other parts of the UK, where the approach has not really worked. Wales is doing something completely different. I understand that that is not comparing apples with apples, but it is right that we learn lessons and try to improve the legislation.

It would be wrong for us just to say, “This is what was decided back in 2019 and we need to move forward with it regardless.” That would be daft, and we would potentially end up in a worse situation. I was concerned that annulling the SSI would delay things. However, from what we have heard today, I gather that SPT will continue with its work. We already seem to be stuck in the slow lane with franchising, and annulling the SSI would give us a little bit of time to make sure that we get the legislation correct and can then move forward with a franchising model that will work for us all.

I move,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Local Services Franchises (Traffic Commissioner Notices and Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/229) be annulled.

Would our panels not consider the financials, too?

Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention?

You said that we would end up with an inferior process if the regulations are annulled, but surely that will happen only if the Government does not make changes to get it right going forward.

You have mentioned SPT. What discussions have you had with it on the issue?

Yes.

I will briefly wind up. Like others, I did not come to the meeting today convinced that a motion to annul was the right way forward, but that was before I listened to the minister’s answers. There seemed to be no real commitment to the process changing, so I think that a motion to annul is our only option. I do not think that we will be doing our scrutiny function any justice were we to continue to use the model, given the evidence that we have taken.